prioritization

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

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.

1installs

Sourceyonatangross/orchestkit

Added on2026-03-25

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add yonatangross/orchestkit prioritization

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

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 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 for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips. See 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 for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template. See 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

prioritization

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Prioritization Frameworks

Decision Tree: Which Framework to Use

RICE

WSJF

ICE

MoSCoW

Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis

Common Pitfalls

Related Skills