prioritize

name	prioritize
description	Feature and initiative prioritization using 7 frameworks (RICE, ICE, WSJF, MoSCoW, Value/Effort, Kano, Weighted Scoring). Auto-detects mode: stack rank, scoring, opportunity assessment, trade-off analysis, or scope cut. Triggers on: "prioritize", "rank these features", "RICE score", "what should we build next", "scope cut", "trade-off".
origin	pm-pilot
version	1.0.0

Prioritize: Feature Ranking and Scoring

Score and rank features, initiatives, or backlog items using established PM frameworks. Auto-detects the right framework and mode from context.

When to Activate

• User says "prioritize", "rank these", "what should we build next?"
• User asks for RICE, ICE, WSJF, or any scoring framework
• User needs to make scope cuts or trade-off decisions
• User has a list of features and needs to decide order

Modes

Auto-detect from user phrasing. If ambiguous, ask.

Mode	When	Output
Stack rank	"What should we build next?"	Ordered list with reasoning
Scoring	"Score these 10 features"	Framework table with scores
Opportunity assessment	"Where's the biggest opportunity?"	Gap analysis, underserved areas
Trade-off analysis	"Should we do A or B?"	Side-by-side comparison
Scope cut	"We need to cut scope"	Keep/cut/defer recommendations

Detection heuristics

• "rank", "order", "what first", "what next" → Stack rank
• "score", "RICE", "ICE", "rate these" → Scoring
• "opportunity", "gap", "underserved" → Opportunity assessment
• "A or B", "trade-off", "which one", "compare" → Trade-off analysis
• "cut scope", "too much", "reduce", "what can we drop" → Scope cut

Frameworks

RICE (default for scoring mode)

Best for: Large backlogs, cross-team prioritization, when you need a defensible number.

Feature	Reach	Impact	Confidence	Effort	RICE Score
{name}	{users/qtr}	{0.25-3}	{50-100%}	{person-months}	{R×I×C/E}

• Reach: How many users affected per quarter
• Impact: 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal
• Confidence: 100% = high certainty, 80% = medium, 50% = low
• Effort: Person-months of work

ICE (default for quick decisions)

Best for: Fast prioritization, smaller teams, when RICE feels heavy.

Feature	Impact	Confidence	Ease	ICE Score
{name}	{1-10}	{1-10}	{1-10}	{I×C×E}

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)

Best for: SAFe teams, flow-based delivery, when cost of delay matters.

Feature	User Value	Time Criticality	Risk Reduction	Job Size	WSJF
{name}	{1-10}	{1-10}	{1-10}	{1-10}	{(UV+TC+RR)/JS}

MoSCoW

Best for: Scope negotiation with stakeholders, release planning.

Priority	Features	Rationale
Must have	{list}	Without these, the release has no value
Should have	{list}	Important but not critical for launch
Could have	{list}	Nice to have, first to cut if time runs short
Won't have	{list}	Explicitly out of scope for this release

Value/Effort Matrix

Best for: Visual communication to stakeholders, quick alignment.

        HIGH VALUE
            │
  Quick     │    Big Bets
  Wins ★    │    (plan carefully)
            │
────────────┼────────────
            │
  Fill-ins  │    Money Pit
  (if idle) │    (avoid)
            │
        LOW VALUE
   LOW EFFORT      HIGH EFFORT

Categorize each feature into a quadrant with one-line reasoning.

Kano Model

Best for: Feature categorization, understanding user expectations vs delight.

Feature	Category	Evidence
{name}	Must-be / Performance / Attractive / Indifferent / Reverse	{why}

• Must-be: Expected. Absence causes dissatisfaction. Presence does not delight.
• Performance: More is better. Linear satisfaction curve.
• Attractive: Unexpected delight. Absence does not disappoint.
• Indifferent: Users do not care either way.
• Reverse: Some users actively dislike this.

Weighted Scoring

Best for: Custom criteria, when standard frameworks do not fit.

1. Ask user to define 3-5 scoring criteria (e.g., strategic alignment, revenue impact, technical feasibility)
2. Ask for weights (must sum to 100%)
3. Score each feature 1-10 on each criterion
4. Weighted score = sum of (score × weight)

Process

Step 1: Gather Items

If the user provides a list, use it. If not, ask:

• What items need prioritizing?
• What is the context? (quarterly planning, scope cut, new initiative)
• Any constraints? (team size, deadline, dependencies)

Step 2: Select Framework

Auto-select based on mode and context:

Context	Recommended Framework
"Score these features" (no other context)	RICE
"Quick prioritization"	ICE
SAFe team, mentions "cost of delay"	WSJF
Scope negotiation, release planning	MoSCoW
Stakeholder presentation	Value/Effort Matrix
Understanding user expectations	Kano
Custom criteria mentioned	Weighted Scoring

If the user asks for a specific framework, use that one.

Step 3: Score and Rank

For each item:

1. Score against the framework dimensions
2. Show your reasoning for each score (one line)
3. Flag low-confidence scores with [Assumption]

Step 4: Present Results

Scoring mode: Framework table + ranked list + recommendation

Stack rank mode: Ordered list with one-line reasoning per item

Scope cut mode: Keep/Cut/Defer table with impact assessment:

| Feature | Decision | Impact of Cutting | Recommendation |
|---------|----------|-------------------|----------------|
| {name}  | Keep/Cut/Defer | {what we lose} | {why} |

Step 5: Cross-Reference

After prioritizing, suggest:

• "Use prd to spec the top-ranked item"
• "Run market-research to validate assumptions in your scoring"
• "Use lenny-podcast for prioritization frameworks (Sean Ellis on ICE, Shreyas Doshi on LNO)"

Rules

• Always show your reasoning for scores. A number without rationale is useless.
• Flag assumptions explicitly. Scoring with made-up confidence is worse than no scoring.
• Never present a single framework as the "right" answer. Frameworks are lenses, not truth.
• If two items score within 10% of each other, call it a tie and recommend the user make the judgment call.
• For scope cuts, always quantify what is lost by cutting, not just what is saved.
• Prefer fewer, better-scored items over exhaustive lists with thin reasoning.