product-prioritization

Standalone Mode: This skill is part of the prepkit-product plugin.

• spec/product-context.md is optional — provide context inline or create one from the template.
• Output paths (research/, reports/) are relative to your current working directory.
• Facilitation routing is advisory — invoke any skill directly.

Product Prioritization

When To Use

• The active initiative has more candidate slices than the team can execute
• Stakeholders disagree on what to build next inside one opportunity area
• Criteria need to be made explicit before scoring starts
• Deferred items need revisit triggers instead of silent backlog drift

Key Concepts

• RICE / ICE / MoSCoW: different tools for different decision contexts
• Opportunity context: scoring must be anchored to a pursued opportunity or an explicit exception
• Tradeoff visibility: ranking is structured conversation, not algorithmic truth
• Revisit triggers: what would cause a deferred option to be reconsidered?
• Opportunity cost: every item you build is something else you cannot build during the same period. When comparing candidates, name what you are giving up by choosing each option — not just what you gain. This makes the tradeoff visible and prevents the illusion that all high-scoring items can ship simultaneously.
• Regret minimization: when scores are close, ask which option you would regret NOT doing in 6–12 months. This surfaces irreversibility, strategic positioning, and learning value that scoring frameworks underweight.

Rules

• Do not score until an opportunity map exists or a documented exception is explicit
• Do not score until metric context is clear enough to judge impact
• Agree on criteria definitions before scoring
• Effort must be estimated by implementers, not requesters
• When two options are close on impact, prefer the smaller slice with lower delivery time and dependency risk — faster delivery creates faster learning loops and earlier user value.
• Scores structure conversation; they do not replace judgment
• Score items by expected user-outcome improvement, not by feature scope or stakeholder enthusiasm — a small change that shifts a key user behavior outranks a large feature that ships output without measurable outcome change
• For net-new market entry decisions where marginal cost is low, activation/retention is measurable, and runway is sufficient, consider switching the primary scoring metric from revenue impact to user adoption — user-count-first scoring reflects the actual strategic lever when market penetration is the bottleneck. All four conditions must hold: (1) net-new market, (2) low marginal cost, (3) measurable activation/retention, (4) sufficient runway. When any condition is not met, default to revenue or contribution-margin impact. See packs/product/skills/domain/product-metrics-analysis/references/growth-strategy-economics.md.
• Apply all output quality gates from references/product-quality-gates.md.
• Before finalizing scores, run an honest confidence calibration: for each Impact and Reach estimate, ask "How confident am I in this number — high (data-backed), medium (informed estimate), or low (gut feel)?" Low-confidence scores must be flagged and treated as ranges, not points. Do not present low-confidence scores with false precision.