| name | sys:prioritize |
| description | Rank a list of ideas, initiatives, features, or life decisions by scoring 2-4 dimensions on a coarse 1-5 scale. The simplest matrix that still beats gut-feel ordering. Walks through dimension selection, legend calibration, and item-by-item scoring, then offers to persist the result as markdown (and optionally CSV).
|
| argument-hint | [ideas to prioritize, or path to a file containing them] |
Prioritize
Companion skill โ not from the book. Inspired by RICE, ICE, and the lived reality that any scoring matrix beats gut-feel ordering โ but only if it is simple enough to actually use.
"If everything is a priority, nothing is."
Why This Matters
Prioritization is hard everywhere it matters: startups, AI bets, product roadmaps, life. The failure mode is almost never "we picked the wrong framework." It is "we picked a framework so heavy that we never finished the exercise" โ or worse, "we skipped the exercise entirely and argued from gut-feel."
Heavyweight frameworks collapse under their own weight. RICE with confidence intervals. Weighted scoring across seven axes. Portfolio theory applied to a five-person startup. They feel rigorous, but the math is spurious precision on top of guesses.
The simplest workable matrix beats the most rigorous unused one.
The Key Insight
Calibration matters more than precision.
If you score everything a 5, the ranking is useless. Coarse 1-5 integer scoring forces honest tradeoffs because it strips away the illusion of precision. You cannot hide behind 4.3 vs 4.4. You have to decide: is this a 4 or a 5?
That forced choice is the point.
The Default Four Dimensions
Each dimension is scored 1-5. Higher is better.
| Score | Effort (to build) | Impact (when used) | Reach (who benefits) | Recurring (how often used) |
|---|
| 5 | 1 hour | Transformative | Everyone | Hourly |
| 4 | 1 day | Great | Majority | Daily |
| 3 | 1 week | Good | Minority | Weekly |
| 2 | 1 month | Minimal | Couple / few | Monthly |
| 1 | 1 quarter | Zero | 0 to 1 | Quarterly / never |
Formula: Score = Effort + Impact + Reach + Recurring (equal weight, max 20, min 4)
No tie-breakers by default โ if two items tie, the cheaper-to-build one wins.
AI-Era Callout
The Effort axis has been compressed hard. What was a "1 week build" (score 3) in 2023 is often a "1 day build" (score 4) in 2026 with AI tooling. Recalibrate the legend every quarter or two โ otherwise your rankings will systematically undervalue small, fast, high-leverage work.
The other three axes are stable. Only Effort drifts.
How This Works
We will work through six phases. Your answers drive the scoring; the matrix is just the scaffolding.
Phase 1 โ Inventory
Tell me what you are prioritizing. Any of these works:
- A bullet or numbered list pasted directly
- A file path to read
- A paragraph of prose I can pull items out of
I will ask:
- What are the items? (If fewer than two, we have nothing to rank โ let's generate more options first.)
- What domain are they in? (Startup roadmap? AI experiments? Life decisions? Side projects?)
- Is the list final, or still open? (If open, we will score what you have and flag the gap.)
Phase 2 โ Pick Your Dimensions
Default: all four (Effort, Impact, Reach, Recurring). Use this when the items are repeated-use things โ features, internal tools, processes.
Simpler modes exist for different jobs:
- 2-axis (Effort ร Impact) โ great on-ramp. Use for one-shot decisions or when you are brand new to scoring. Max score 10.
- 3-axis (Effort + Impact + Reach) โ drop Recurring for one-time initiatives: a launch, a hire, a migration.
- 4-axis (default) โ repeated-use items where frequency matters.
I will ask:
- How often will the winning item get used? (If "once" โ drop Recurring.)
- Does reach even apply? (If the beneficiary is always "one person / me" โ drop Reach.)
If you want more than four dimensions, I will push back. More axes usually means you are avoiding a decision, not making one. Pick four, live with the imperfection.
Phase 3 โ Calibrate the Legend
This is the most-skipped, most-important step. Before we score anything, we anchor the scale to your domain.
For each dimension you picked, I will ask:
- Give me a real-world example of a 5 in your world. ("Transformative impact" means what, to you? "1 hour to build" assumes what skill level?)
- Give me a real-world example of a 1. (What does "zero impact" look like? What does "takes a quarter" mean given your team size?)
- What is a typical 3? (This becomes your gut-check midpoint.)
If you cannot name a concrete 5 and a concrete 1 for each axis, we are not ready to score yet. Keep calibrating.
Phase 4 โ Score Each Item
Now we go item by item. For each, I will assign or ask for integer scores on each dimension, plus a one-sentence quick take.
For each item:
- Effort: How long to build / decide / execute? (Use the legend โ no half-points.)
- Impact: What changes when it is in use? (Transformative or marginal?)
- Reach: Who benefits? (One person or everyone?)
- Recurring: How often does the benefit repeat? (Hourly or once-and-done?)
- Quick take: One sentence in plain language. This is the part you will actually quote in a meeting. Example: "Dead simple, daily use, benefits everyone โ start here."
Calibration tip: if every item is scoring 4-5 on Impact, you are inflating. Force yourself to give at least one item a 2 on each axis, and see if the ranking feels right.
Phase 5 โ Rank & Discuss
I will produce a ranked markdown table inline, sorted by total score, with quick takes. Then we stress-test it:
- Does the top item surprise you? If yes โ good, the matrix earned its keep. If no โ confirm it against your gut before proceeding.
- Are there gated items? (High score but blocked on a dependency โ call it out.)
- What is the natural sequence? (Top 3 in order, or parallel tracks?)
- Would you actually do what the ranking says? If not, why not โ and does that reveal a missing dimension?
Phase 6 โ Persist (Optional)
I will ask if you want to save the result as files. If yes:
prioritization-{slug}.md โ ranked table, scored matrix, legend, quick takes, playbook notesprioritization-{slug}.csv โ same data, spreadsheet-friendly
Default output directory: ./ (or deliverables/ if it exists). Default basename: a short kebab-case slug from your topic, or prioritization-{YYYY-MM-DD} if no good slug is obvious. The markdown file uses the template at templates/output-template.md.
Say "no" and we stop with just the inline ranking. Both are valid.
Getting Started
Tell me:
- What are you prioritizing? (Paste the list, or point me at a file.)
- What is the domain? (Startup features? AI projects? Life decisions? Side projects?)
- What is your gut-instinct top pick? (We will score against it and see if the matrix agrees.)
Ground Rules
- Equal weights are deliberate. Weighted formulas look rigorous and are usually spurious precision. Equal weights are easier to defend and easier to recalibrate. Do not weight unless you have a hard reason.
- Integer scores only. No 3.5s. If you are tempted to split the difference, pick the score that reflects the dominant reality.
- The quick take is the product. Numbers give the ranking; the one-liner is what you will quote. Write it like you mean it.
- Calibrate against the rest of the list. If everything is a 5, the ranking is useless. Spread the scores.
- Two dimensions is fine. Four is the sweet spot. More than four is usually procrastination dressed as rigor.
- Recalibrate quarterly. Especially the Effort axis. AI keeps compressing it.
Output
By the end, you will have:
- A ranked list of every item with total scores
- A scored matrix showing each dimension for each item
- Quick takes โ one sentence per item, meeting-ready
- A recommended starting point with clear reasoning
- Optional persisted files โ markdown and/or CSV, saved to disk
Let's rank it. What are you prioritizing?
