prioritization-frameworks
Reference guide to 9 prioritization frameworks with formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates — RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW, Opportunity Score, and more. Use when selecting a prioritization method, comparing frameworks like RICE vs ICE, or learning how different prioritization approaches work.
64
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./pm-execution/skills/prioritization-frameworks/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong description that clearly communicates what the skill provides (a reference guide with formulas, guidance, and templates for 9 prioritization frameworks) and when to use it (selecting, comparing, or learning about prioritization methods). It names specific frameworks as trigger terms, uses third-person voice, and occupies a distinct niche that minimizes conflict risk.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete deliverables: 'formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates' and names specific frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW, Opportunity Score). This goes beyond vague language and enumerates what the skill provides. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Reference guide to 9 prioritization frameworks with formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates') and when ('Use when selecting a prioritization method, comparing frameworks like RICE vs ICE, or learning how different prioritization approaches work'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'prioritization frameworks', 'RICE', 'ICE', 'Kano', 'MoSCoW', 'Opportunity Score', 'RICE vs ICE', 'prioritization method', 'prioritization approaches'. These cover common user queries well. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — prioritization frameworks are a specific domain, and naming specific frameworks like RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW makes it very unlikely to conflict with other skills. The comparison use case ('RICE vs ICE') further narrows the trigger scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a reasonably well-organized reference guide covering prioritization frameworks with clear formulas and a useful comparison table. Its main weaknesses are the lack of worked examples showing how to apply the formulas with concrete numbers, the absence of an explicit workflow for selecting and applying a framework, and external template links that Claude cannot access. The content is appropriate for a knowledge reference but would benefit from more actionable, step-by-step guidance.
Suggestions
Add a worked example with concrete numbers for at least one framework (e.g., 'Feature A: Importance=0.8, Satisfaction=0.3, Opportunity Score = 0.8 × 0.7 = 0.56') to make the formulas immediately actionable.
Include an explicit decision workflow: 'Step 1: Identify what you're prioritizing (problems vs features vs tasks) → Step 2: Select framework from table → Step 3: Gather data → Step 4: Calculate scores → Step 5: Rank and validate with stakeholders'.
Replace or supplement the external Google Drive/Slides links with inline templates or markdown tables that Claude can actually use, since Claude cannot access external URLs.
Trim the introductory sentence and 'Core Principle' section — Claude doesn't need to be told what a reference guide is, and the principle could be a one-line note within the Opportunity Score section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient with good use of tables and formulas, but includes some unnecessary framing ('A reference guide to help you select and apply the right prioritization framework for your context') and the core principle statement, while valid, is somewhat preachy. The content is mostly lean but could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete formulas (Opportunity Score, ICE, RICE) and clear definitions, but this is a reference/knowledge skill rather than a task-execution skill. There are no executable code examples or step-by-step commands — the actionability comes from formulas and decision criteria, which are reasonably specific but lack worked examples showing how to apply them with real numbers. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The comparison table and framework descriptions provide a clear decision path for selecting a framework, but there's no explicit workflow for actually applying one (e.g., 'Step 1: Survey customers, Step 2: Normalize scores, Step 3: Calculate Opportunity Score, Step 4: Plot on chart'). The sequence of when and how to use these frameworks is implicit rather than explicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with headers, a summary table, and external links to templates and further reading. However, there are no bundle files to offload detailed content into, and the external links are to Google Drive/Slides which Claude cannot access. The skill is a single monolithic file that could benefit from splitting detailed framework guides into separate files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- phuryn/pm-skills
- Commit
d384f0c
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.