| name | triage-roadmap-ideas |
| description | Triage unstructured roadmap ideas or feature requests against Wagtail's product strategy and selection criteria — classify the item, run the AI/ecosystem/maintainability gates, score it on the weighted matrix, plot it on the strategic-value/viability axes, and record a qualitative summary with a decision. Use this whenever someone drops in a feature request, a wishlist, a "should we do X?" question, or a grab-bag of ideas and wants to know where it fits in the prioritization framework, whether it's on-strategy, what score it gets, or what to do with it — even if they don't say the word "triage". |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"audience":"maintainers","internal":true,"disable-model-invocation":true} |
Overview
Take one or more roadmap ideas in unstructured form — a single feature request, a vague "should we do X?", or a grab-bag of wishes pasted from a discussion — and run each through Wagtail's triage methodology to produce a structured assessment: a classification, gate results, a weighted score, a position on the strategic-value/viability chart, and a qualitative summary ending in a decision. This is the front of the roadmap funnel: it helps decide whether an idea is worth pursuing and how it's framed, before anyone writes an RFC or an issue.
The scoring rubric itself lives in docs/selection-criteria.md — that is the source of truth for the gates, the 1–5 guidance per criterion, the weights, and the two-axis view. This skill instruments that document: it tells you how to apply it consistently and what to emit. When the two disagree, the criteria doc wins; don't hard-code numbers or guidance from it here, read it at runtime so the skill tracks the (still-evolving, DRAFT) methodology.
The output is a Markdown report the user reviews — it does not create issues, open PRs, or change the roadmap. It's a decision aid, not a decision.
Read first, every run:
docs/selection-criteria.md — the methodology: Stage 0 classification, gates G1–G3, the six-criterion scoring matrix, the qualitative summary, and the two-axis view. This drives everything below.docs/product-strategy.md — the strategy the scores are grounded in (pillars, differentiators, AI principles, target sectors).README.md — the canonical short names + emoji for the pillars and supporting work..github/labels.json — the only valid labels.
Methodology
Goals
- Run each idea through the full pipeline in
selection-criteria.md: classify → gate → score → plot → summarise → decide.
- Ground every judgment in the strategy as written. A criterion-1 score of 4–5 should point at a named element of a pillar; a differentiator score of 4–5 should point at accessibility / security / sustainability / responsible AI / SEO. If you can't cite it, it isn't that high.
- Produce numbers a human can trust and the qualitative record that explains them — the single weighted score ranks the queue, the summary explains why, and the "key assumption" says which lever would move it.
- Point to related roadmap items already in
.issues/ and suggest 2–3 real labels, so a graduating idea is ready to become an issue.
- Be honest about weak or off-strategy ideas. A low score, a gate block, or a "route out at Stage 0" is a legitimate, useful outcome — report it plainly rather than inflating scores to give an idea a home.
Guardrails
- The rubric is
selection-criteria.md, not your taste. Read it each run and apply its tables. Don't invent criteria, weights, or score bands.
- Classify before scoring. Only pillar work and enablers go through the matrix. Maintenance (security patches, dependency bumps, small template/DX enhancements) and management-system changes are routed out at Stage 0 with a note — don't force a matrix score onto them. Example:
include_block template tag (#161) is a small DX enhancement, not pillar work — route it out; Adopt Stimulus (#21) is an enabler — score it with the enabler variant of Criterion 1.
- Gates are hard blocks. Any G1 AI-principle Violation, or a failed G2/G3, blocks the item — it's declined, redirected, or returned for revision. Still report the matrix if useful, but the decision is driven by the block, not the score.
- Resist strategic-fit inflation. Criterion 1 is the MAX across the four pillars, but most ideas genuinely deliver one pillar and score 1–2 on the others — record the per-pillar spread honestly; a row of 4s across all pillars almost always means the scoring is too generous.
- Only use labels that exist in
.github/labels.json, and only cite related items that actually exist in .issues/open or .issues/closed, linked by real issue number. Never invent either.
- Don't write issue bodies, RFC sections, or effort estimates beyond the S/M/L/XL bubble size — that's
draft-roadmap-issues and draft-roadmap-rfc. Triage stops at "here's the score, the position, and the decision".
Scoring notes (the rubric lives in the criteria doc)
Read selection-criteria.md for the actual tables. A few things worth holding in mind as you apply it, so the output is consistent across runs:
- Criterion 1 (Strategic fit, 25%) — for pillar work, score the idea against each of the four pillars and take the MAX; record all four so the pillar-balance review and the alignment metric have data. For enablers, use the enabler variant (breadth of unblocking). The pillar that produced the MAX is the item's primary pillar — its emoji is the visual marker.
- G1 (AI principles) — mark each of the five principles Pass / N/A / Violation. For an idea with no AI dimension, all five are usually N/A (that's fine, not a gap). Record the marks even when the whole row is N/A — the record is the point, since a clean set of Pass marks on an AI feature is a responsible-AI proof point for marketing.
- Weighted overall —
Σ (score × weight), out of 5. Show the arithmetic in the matrix so it's checkable.
- Two-axis coordinates — Y (strategic value) = mean of criteria 1, 2, 3; X (viability) = mean of criteria 4, 5, 6; bubble = S/M/L/XL effort; marker = primary-pillar emoji. Name the quadrant and the disposition it implies (schedule now / find a sponsor / decline or park / opportunistic).
- Historical/closed items assessed retrospectively (as many eval cases are): score demand and sponsorship from the evidence in the body (e.g.
Headless & API improvements (#94) cites the 2024 headless survey → real demand signal), and say when evidence is absent rather than assuming it.
Finding related roadmap items
The local issue files in .issues/open and .issues/closed are the fastest source. Each is <number>-<slug>.md with frontmatter (title, labels, milestone) and a body. Match on concept, not just keywords. Strategic themes/pillars are not stored in these files (they live as a custom field on project 16), so infer an existing item's pillar from its title/body if needed. For each related item, give the issue link, its title, and one line on how it relates (duplicate / overlaps / umbrella / depends on / follow-up / precursor).
Suggesting labels
Pick 2–3 from .github/labels.json — usually topic labels for the area, plus a status label (needs sponsorship, needs contributions, sponsored) only if the idea/decision implies it. Favour the labels the related items already use, for consistency. If no label fits well, say which is closest and note the gap rather than forcing a third.
Inputs
Detect from the request, or ask if unclear:
- The idea(s) — pasted text, a file path (e.g. an existing
.issues/...md), or a link. The only required input.
- Output path — default
triage-<slug>.md in the repo root, where <slug> is a short kebab-case name derived from the idea (or the batch, for a grab-bag). Reuse an existing placeholder if the user made one.
- Whether to write a file — default yes. For a quick gut-check it's fine to answer inline and skip the file; ask if ambiguous.
Reporting
After writing the file, give the user a short summary: for each idea, the classification, the primary-pillar emoji, the overall weighted score, the quadrant, and the decision. Flag anything blocked by a gate or routed out at Stage 0. Point to the file path. Suggest next steps: strong, high-viability ideas → flesh out into an RFC/issue via the sibling skills; high-value/low-viability → the lever from "key assumption"; weak/off-strategy → what would change the picture.
Output format
Use this structure. For a single idea, emit one assessment and skip the summary/scatter section. For a grab-bag, split the input into distinct ideas first (one idea = one thing that could become one roadmap item), emit one assessment per idea, then the ranking table and scatter coordinates at the end.
# Triage: <batch or idea title>
_Assessed against [selection criteria](docs/selection-criteria.md) + [product strategy](docs/product-strategy.md) v<version> on <YYYY-MM-DD>._
## <primary-pillar emoji> <Idea 1: short title>
> <one- or two-sentence restatement of the idea in your own words, so the caller can confirm you understood it>
**Classification:** Pillar work · <or Enabler / Maintenance — routed out / Management system — not a roadmap >
<!-- If routed out at Stage 0, stop after a one-line rationale + a decision. Only pillar work and enablers get the full block below. -->
| Gate | Result | Note |
| --- | --- | --- |
| G1 · AI principles | Pass / | all N/A (no AI dimension) — or summarise the marks |
| G2 · Ecosystem placement | Core / Package | |
| G3 · Maintainability floor | Pass / Concern | |
<!-- G1 detail — include the per-principle table only when the idea has an AI dimension: -->
| AI principle | Mark | Note |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. No AI dependency in core | Pass / N/A / | … |
| 2. Responsible approach to AI | … | … |
| 3. Model and provider agnostic | … | … |
| 4. Only the right AI | … | … |
| 5. Human in the loop | … | … |
| Criterion | Weight | Score (1–5) | Weighted | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Strategic fit | 25% | 5 | 1.25 | MAX of per-pillar below |
| 2. Differentiator reinforcement | 15% | 4 | 0.60 | … |
| 3. User demand & adoption | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | … |
| 4. Sponsorship appeal | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | … |
| 5. Deliverability | 15% | 4 | 0.60 | … |
| 6. Maintenance burden (high = low burden) | 15% | 4 | 0.60 | … |
| | 100% | | | |
Per-pillar strategic fit (criterion 1) — MAX is the primary pillar:
🏔️ 5 ← MAX (primary)
🪢 2
🛠️ 3
🌳 1
= mean(1, 2, 3) = 4.0
= mean(4, 5, 6) = 3.7
M
High value · High viability →
🏔️ Future-ready content management.
.
[]() — .
, — .
Schedule / Seek sponsor / Park / Decline — review by .
---
Ranked by overall weighted score.
| # | Idea | Class | Primary | Score | Quadrant | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | | Pillar | 🏔️ | 4.00 | Schedule now | Schedule |
| 2 | | Enabler | 🏗️ | 3.30 | Find a sponsor | Seek sponsor |
| — | | Maintenance | — | — | routed out | Decline |
| Idea | Strategic value (Y) | Viability (X) | Effort | Marker |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | 4.0 | 3.7 | M | 🏔️ |
Steps
1. Load the methodology and gather inputs
2. Classify (Stage 0)
3. Run the gates (G1–G3)
4. Score the matrix
5. Plot the two-axis position
6. Related items, labels, qualitative summary
7. Write the report and summarize
