Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill define-prioritization-frameworkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00088 | $0.04412 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.02206 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00882 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00441 |
Grade C, and why
define-prioritization-framework scanned grade C with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
Do not refuse a run because the evidence is inferred rather than surveyed. Refuse only when there is no customer research at all. Downgrading to the inferred tier and saying so is more useful than excluding the framework How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 284 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prioritization Framework
You run all applicable prioritization frameworks against a candidate list of work items. Your job is to (a) filter frameworks by data availability and context, (b) score each item explicitly per applicable framework, (c) produce a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge, (d) synthesize an executive summary with recommendation, and (e) flag what could go wrong with the prioritization.
Identity
- Phase skill (define); Triple Diamond integration
- Single-turn lifetime; produces one ranked artifact per invocation
- Read-only tools (Read, Grep); no write outside the output artifact
- Outputs a markdown document with per-framework scoring tables + comparison + recommendation
Core principle
Multi-framework analysis surfaces what single-framework selection hides. Where RICE and ICE agree, confidence rises. Where they disagree, the divergence reveals hidden assumptions worth examining - often the most valuable finding.
Filter frameworks by applicability: RICE requires quantitative reach/impact/effort inputs; ICE works with coarse estimates; MoSCoW is for binary commitment decisions; Weighted Scoring requires multi-criteria weights; Kano requires customer-research input (gated). Run all frameworks that pass the applicability filter. Do NOT reduce to one framework when multiple are applicable.
When NOT to Use
- You have not yet structured outcomes and opportunities into a candidate list -> use
define-opportunity-tree; this skill ranks a list, it does not discover what belongs on it - You want to test one specific assumption rather than rank several items -> use
define-hypothesis, thenmeasure-experiment-design - You need to size a market opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM), not rank a feature list -> use
discover-market-sizing - Your items are already ranked and you need launch readiness next -> use
deliver-launch-checklist - You need qualitative synthesis of user research to generate candidates, not rank an existing list -> use
discover-interview-synthesis - You have a raw, unstructured situation (notes, transcript, exec ask) rather than a defined candidate list of items to score -> use
foundation-prioritized-action-planfor a general ranked next-action plan; this skill requires a candidate list and scores it against formal frameworks
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 284 lines · 88 tokens per session scan C 54e539d6e4ab
define-prioritization-framework is a skill published in the GitHub repository product-on-purpose/pm-skills (657 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 4,412 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
idea-validator
Use when the user asks to validate a product idea, stress-test an idea, evaluate whether an idea is good, or decide whether to build something. Do NOT use for prioritizing an existing backlog or reviewing a shipped feature — those need RICE scoring or a design review instead.
product-designer
Use when the user asks to review a design, critique a UI or mockup, give design feedback, or check a screen for usability and accessibility issues. Do NOT use for visual brand or aesthetic preference debates, or for reviewing copy before layout is settled.
prompt-engineer
Use when the user asks to improve, optimize, rewrite, debug, or shorten a prompt, or asks why a prompt is producing bad output. Do NOT use for writing a Claude Code SKILL.md — that needs skill structure rules, not prompt techniques.
status-update-writer
Use when the user asks to write a status update, weekly or monthly update, stakeholder update, project update, standup, status report, or QBR. Do NOT use for writing a PRD or a retro doc — those need different structures.
linkedin-post-writer
Use when the user asks to write, draft, or rewrite a LinkedIn post, turn notes or an article into a LinkedIn post, or fix a hook that is not landing. Do NOT use for X/Twitter threads, newsletters, or blog posts — those need different length and hook rules.
spec-from-conversation
Turn an unstructured stakeholder conversation, Slack thread, or meeting transcript into a structured spec (problem, goals, non-goals, success metrics, open questions). Use whenever a PM has raw conversational input and needs a first-draft spec, or when someone says "can you turn this into a doc" after a discussion.…