ice-score

name	ice-score
description	Use to prioritize solutions or opportunities using ICE scoring with evidence-backed confidence.

ICE Score Skill

ICE scoring with integrated confidence meter.

Workflow

1. List items to score (opportunities, solutions, or features).

2. For each item, score three dimensions (1-10):

   Impact: How much will this move the target metric?

   • 1-3: Marginal improvement. Nice to have.
   • 4-6: Meaningful improvement. Moves the needle.
   • 7-10: Transformative. Changes the game.
   • Evidence: What data supports this impact estimate?

   Confidence: How sure are we about the impact estimate?

   • 1-3: Gut feel. No data. Assumption.
   • 4-6: Some evidence. Indirect signals. Analogous examples.
   • 7-10: Strong evidence. Direct user research. Quantitative data.
   • Evidence: What specific data points back this confidence?

   Ease: How easy is this to implement and ship?

   • 1-3: Major effort. Multiple sprints. New capabilities needed.
   • 4-6: Moderate effort. Known patterns. Some complexity.
   • 7-10: Quick win. Existing patterns. Low risk.
   • Evidence: What technical assessment supports this?

3. Calculate ICE score: Impact x Confidence x Ease

4. Rank items by ICE score.

5. Apply bias check: Are high-scoring items benefiting from availability bias, IKEA effect, or anchoring?

6. Output:

   | Item | Impact | Confidence | Ease | ICE | Top Evidence |
   |------|--------|-----------|------|-----|-------------|
   | ...  | X (why) | X (why) | X (why) | XXX | [source] |
   

Rules

• Every score must have a brief justification.
• Confidence of 7+ requires direct evidence (not analogy or assumption).
• If all items score similarly, the scoring criteria need refinement.
• Review for bias after scoring, before acting.

Theory Citations

• Gilad: Evidence-Guided (confidence-backed prioritization)
• Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (bias in estimation)