prioritization-advisor

Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs. Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/prioritization-advisor/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

48%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured interactive decision guide with clear sequencing and good question design, undermined by verbosity and placeholder-heavy templates. Splitting the framework catalog and output template into references would substantially improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the framework landscape catalog and the full output template into separate reference files (e.g., references/frameworks.md, references/output-template.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to reduce the inline wall of text.

Replace placeholder scaffolding ([Rationale 1], [Detailed guidance], [Framework Name]) in the output template with concrete, fill-in-the-blank sentence stems so the guidance is executable rather than illustrative.

Cut explanations of well-known concepts (what RICE/Kano/Moscow are) down to one-line context, trusting Claude's existing knowledge, and trim the redundant Common Pitfalls section that repeats the 'wrong framework for stage' point already made in Example 2.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The 460-line body is noticeably verbose: it re-explains well-known frameworks (what RICE/Kano are), repeats material between the output template and the Examples section, and carries large placeholder scaffolding blocks that pad the token budget.	2 / 5
Actionability	The four adaptive questions with enumerated options are concrete, but the core output template is mostly placeholder scaffolding ([Framework Name], [Rationale 1 based on Q1-Q4], [Detailed guidance]) rather than executable guidance, leaving key details to be inferred.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a clear sequence (four adaptive questions then a numbered framework recommendation) and the interaction protocol is delegated to workshop-facilitation with explicit precedence rules, though non-destructive advice means formal validation checkpoints are largely absent.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the single external reference (../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) is clearly signaled one level deep, but the framework landscape, output template, and examples are all inlined into one monolithic file rather than split into separate references.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states the skill's purpose and gives explicit use-when guidance with concrete framework names as triggers. Minor room to add synonym phrasing like 'roadmap' or 'backlog prioritization'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and lists multiple specific concrete frameworks (RICE, ICE, value/effort) plus the decision dimensions (stage, team context, stakeholder needs), giving comprehensive coverage of the action space.	5 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ('Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs') and when ('Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural keywords users actually say (RICE, ICE, value/effort, scoring approach, prioritization framework) are present, but common synonyms like roadmap or backlog prioritization are missing, so it falls just short of comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The prioritization-framework niche anchored to named frameworks (RICE/ICE/value/effort) is distinct with minimal overlap risk against other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills
Path: skills/prioritization-advisor/SKILL.md
Commit: a03af68

Reviewed: 11 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.