Skip to content
Back to skills

Prioritization

ASecurity

Prioritization frameworks — RICE, WSJF, ICE, MoSCoW, and opportunity cost scoring for backlog ranking. Use when prioritizing features, comparing initiatives, justifying roadmap decisions, or evaluating trade-offs between competing work items.

  • 285 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added May 27, 2026
data-aigoapi

Works with

  • claude code
  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 8 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 29, 2026

npx -y skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill prioritization --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Prioritization?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Prioritization
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/yonatangross-prioritization/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yonatangross-prioritization)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: prioritization
compatibility: "Claude Code 2.1.277+"
description: "Prioritization frameworks — RICE, WSJF, ICE, MoSCoW, and opportunity cost scoring for backlog ranking. Use when prioritizing features, comparing initiatives, justifying roadmap decisions, or evaluating trade-offs between competing work items."
context: fork
agent: product-strategist
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: false
metadata:
  category: document-asset-creation
  version: "1.0.0"
  author: "OrchestKit"
  complexity: "medium"
  tags: "rice, wsjf, ice, moscow, prioritization, backlog, scoring, ranking"
allowed-tools: "Read Glob Grep WebFetch WebSearch"
---

# Prioritization Frameworks

Score, rank, and justify backlog decisions using the right framework for the situation.

## Decision Tree: Which Framework to Use

```
Do you have a hard deadline or regulatory pressure?
  YES → WSJF (Cost of Delay drives sequencing)
  NO  → Do you have reach/usage data?
          YES → RICE (data-driven, accounts for user reach)
          NO  → Are you in a time-boxed planning session?
                  YES → ICE (fast, 1-10 scales, no data required)
                  NO  → Is this a scope negotiation with stakeholders?
                          YES → MoSCoW (bucket features, control scope creep)
                          NO  → Value-Effort Matrix (quick 2x2 triage)
```

| Framework | Best For | Data Required | Time to Score |
|-----------|----------|---------------|---------------|
| RICE | Data-rich teams, steady-state prioritization | Analytics, user counts | 30-60 min |
| WSJF | SAFe orgs, time-sensitive or regulated work | Relative estimates only | 15-30 min |
| ICE | Startup speed, early validation, quick triage | None | 5-10 min |
| MoSCoW | Scope negotiation, release planning | Stakeholder input | 1-2 hours |
| Value-Effort | 2x2 visual, quick team alignment | None | 10-15 min |

---

## RICE

```
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
```

| Factor | Scale | Notes |
|--------|-------|-------|
| Reach | Actual users/quarter | Use analytics; do not estimate |
| Impact | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 | Minimal → Massive per user |
| Confidence | 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0 | Moonshot → Strong data |
| Effort | Person-months | Include design, eng, QA |

```markdown
## RICE Scoring: [Feature Name]

| Feature     | Reach  | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score  |
|-------------|--------|--------|------------|--------|--------|
| Smart search| 50,000 | 2      | 0.8        | 3      | 26,667 |
| CSV export  | 10,000 | 0.5    | 1.0        | 0.5    | 10,000 |
| Dark mode   | 30,000 | 0.25   | 1.0        | 1      |  7,500 |
```

See [rules/prioritize-rice.md](rules/prioritize-rice.md) for ICE, Kano, and full scale tables.

---

## WSJF

```
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction  (1-21 Fibonacci each)
```

Higher WSJF = do first. Fibonacci scale (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) forces relative sizing.

```markdown
## WSJF: GDPR Compliance Update

User Value:       8   (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21  (regulatory deadline this quarter)
Risk Reduction:   13  (avoids significant fines)
Job Size:          8  (medium complexity)

Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25
```

See [rules/prioritize-wsjf.md](rules/prioritize-wsjf.md) for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips.
See [references/wsjf-guide.md](references/wsjf-guide.md) for the full scoring guide.

---

## ICE

```
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease    (all factors 1-10)
```

No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items. Useful for early-stage products and rapid triage sessions.

---

## MoSCoW

Bucket features before estimation. Must-Haves alone should ship a viable product.

```markdown
## Release 1.0 MoSCoW

### Must Have (~60% of effort)
- [ ] User authentication
- [ ] Core CRUD operations

### Should Have (~20%)
- [ ] Search, export, notifications

### Could Have (~20%)
- [ ] Dark mode, keyboard shortcuts

### Won't Have (documented out-of-scope)
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI features (Release 2.0)
```

---

## Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis

When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.

```markdown
## Trade-Off: AI Search vs Platform Migration (Q2 eng team)

### Option A: AI Search
- Cost of Delay: $25K/month (competitive risk)
- RICE Score: 18,000
- Effort: 6 weeks

### Option B: Platform Migration
- Cost of Delay: $5K/month (tech debt interest)
- RICE Score: 4,000
- Effort: 8 weeks

### Recommendation
Human decides. Key factors:
1. Q2 OKR: Increase trial-to-paid conversion (favors AI Search)
2. Engineering capacity: Only one team, sequential not parallel
3. Customer commitment: No contractual deadline for either
```

See [rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md](rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md) for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template.
See [references/rice-scoring-guide.md](references/rice-scoring-guide.md) for detailed RICE calibration.

---

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---------|------------|
| Gaming scores to justify pre-decided work | Calibrate as a team; document assumptions |
| Mixing frameworks in one table | Pick one framework per planning session |
| Only tracking high-RICE items; ignoring cost of delay | Combine RICE with explicit delay cost analysis |
| MoSCoW Must-Have bloat (>70% of scope) | Must-Haves alone must ship a viable product |
| Comparing RICE scores across different goals | Only compare within the same objective |

---

## Related Skills

- `product-frameworks` — Full PM toolkit (value prop, market sizing, competitive analysis, user research, business case)
- `write-prd` — Convert prioritized features into product requirements documents
- `product-analytics` — Define and instrument the metrics that feed RICE reach/impact scores
- `okr-design` — Set the objectives that determine which KPIs drive RICE impact scoring
- `market-sizing` — TAM/SAM/SOM analysis that informs strategic priority
- `competitive-analysis` — Competitor context that raises or lowers WSJF time criticality scores

---

**Version:** 1.0.0

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • references/rice-scoring-guide.md3.1 KB
  • references/wsjf-guide.md2.7 KB
  • rules/_sections.md738 B
  • rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md4.6 KB
  • rules/prioritize-rice.md3.8 KB
  • rules/prioritize-wsjf.md3.6 KB
  • test-cases.json1.9 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.