moscow

name	moscow
description	MoSCoW prioritization categorizing items as Must have, Should have, Could have, or Won't have. Use for scope definition, feature prioritization, or when everything feels equally important.
user-invocable	true

MoSCoW Prioritization

Categorize items into Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have for clear scope and priorities.

Instructions

Take the list of items provided and sort them into MoSCoW categories. Be rigorous about what's truly a "Must"—if the project/goal can still succeed without it, it's not a Must.

Output Format

Context What are we prioritizing for? What are the constraints (time, budget, capacity)?

Prioritized List

Must Have (Critical)

Without these, the project fails or is pointless

• [Item] — [Why it's a must]
• [Item] — [Why it's a must]

Should Have (Important)

Significantly adds value; painful to omit but project survives

• [Item] — [Value it adds]
• [Item] — [Value it adds]

Could Have (Nice to Have)

Desirable if time permits; low impact if cut

• [Item] — [Why it's optional]
• [Item] — [Why it's optional]

Won't Have (Not This Time)

Explicitly out of scope; may revisit later

• [Item] — [Why it's deferred]
• [Item] — [Why it's deferred]

Effort Distribution

Category	Items	Est. Effort %
Must	X	≤60%
Should	X	~20%
Could	X	~10%
Won't	X	0% (deferred)

Red Flags

• If Must > 60% of effort: scope may be too large
• If no Won'ts: probably not being honest about constraints
• If everything is Must: priorities haven't been set

Rationale Explain the key trade-offs made and the reasoning behind contentious categorizations.

Next Step What's the first Must item to tackle?

Guidelines

• Ask "If we shipped without this, would we fail?" for each Must
• Challenge "Musts" that are really "someone really wants this"
• Make Won'ts explicit—avoids scope creep later
• Consider dependencies (a Must might require a "hidden" Must)
• Stakeholder alignment is essential—this isn't just your opinion

$ARGUMENTS