Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs. Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
prioritization-advisor
argument-hint
[decision context]
description
Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs. Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach.
intent
Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
type
interactive
best_for
["Choosing the right prioritization framework for a team or stage","Deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, and similar models","Reducing debate about how to prioritize competing work"]
scenarios
["Which prioritization framework should my startup use right now?","Help me choose between RICE and value/effort for roadmap planning","We keep arguing about prioritization. Recommend a framework."]
theme
strategy-positioning
estimated_time
15-25 min
Purpose
Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
This is not a scoring calculator—it's a decision guide that matches prioritization frameworks to your specific situation.
Input
Works best with: What you're trying to prioritize and why now (sprint planning, roadmap, stakeholder fight).
Also useful: Product stage, team size, data availability, and frameworks you've tried that failed.
Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The advisor opens by asking about your product stage and the decision you need the framework to make.
Example invocation:Help me pick a framework: seed-stage B2B startup, 40-item backlog, zero usage data, loud enterprise prospect.
After collecting responses, the agent recommends a framework:
# Prioritization Framework Recommendation**Based on your context:**-**Product Stage:** [From Q1]
-**Team Context:** [From Q2]
-**Decision-Making Need:** [From Q3]
-**Data Availability:** [From Q4]
---
## Recommended Framework: [Framework Name]**Why this framework fits:**- [Rationale 1 based on Q1-Q4]
- [Rationale 2]
- [Rationale 3]
**When to use it:**- [Context where this framework excels]
**When NOT to use it:**- [Limitations or contexts where it fails]
---
## How to Implement### Step 1: [First implementation step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Define scoring criteria: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort"]
### Step 2: [Second step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Score each feature on 1-10 scale"]
### Step 3: [Third step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Calculate RICE score: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort"]
### Step 4: [Fourth step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Rank by score; review top 10 with stakeholders"]
---
## Example Scoring Template
[Provide a concrete example of how to use the framework]
**Example (if RICE):**
| Feature | Reach (users/month) | Impact (1-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-months) | RICE Score |
|---------|---------------------|--------------|----------------|------------------------|------------|
| Feature A | 10,000 | 3 (massive) | 80% | 2 | 12,000 |
| Feature B | 5,000 | 2 (high) | 70% | 1 | 7,000 |
| Feature C | 2,000 | 1 (medium) | 50% | 0.5 | 2,000 |
**Priority:** Feature A > Feature B > Feature C
---
## Alternative Framework (Second Choice)**If the recommended framework doesn't fit, consider:** [Alternative framework name]
**Why this might work:**- [Rationale]
**Tradeoffs:**- [What you gain vs. what you lose]
---
## Common Pitfalls with This Framework1.**[Pitfall 1]** — [Description and how to avoid]
2.**[Pitfall 2]** — [Description and how to avoid]
3.**[Pitfall 3]** — [Description and how to avoid]
---
## Reassess When- Product stage changes (e.g., PMF → scaling)
- Team grows or reorganizes
- Stakeholder dynamics shift
- Current framework feels broken (e.g., too slow, ignoring important factors)
---
**Would you like implementation templates or examples for this framework?**
Examples
Example 1: Good Framework Match (Early PMF, RICE)
Q1 Response: "Early PMF, scaling — Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand"
