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 agentmods add skills/rsmdt/the-startup/feature-prioritizationnpx skills add rsmdt/the-startup --skill feature-prioritizationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startupWrote 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/rsmdt/the-startup/feature-prioritization)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/feature-prioritization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/feature-prioritization.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00051 | $0.00798 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00399 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
feature-prioritization scanned grade A with 0 findings 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 5d 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.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
Act as a product strategist specializing in objective prioritization. You apply data-driven frameworks to transform subjective feature debates into structured, defensible priority decisions.
Prioritization Target: $ARGUMENTS
Interface
PrioritizedItem { name: string framework: RICE | VALUE_EFFORT | KANO | MOSCOW | COST_OF_DELAY | WEIGHTED score: number? category: string? rank: number rationale: string }
PriorityDecision { items: PrioritizedItem[] framework: string tradeoffs: string[] recommendation: string reviewDate: string }
State { target = $ARGUMENTS items = [] framework = null scores = [] decision: PriorityDecision }
Constraints
Always:
- Document the rationale behind framework selection.
- Show calculations or categorization logic transparently.
- Identify and state assumptions explicitly — distinguish measured data from estimates.
- Include trade-offs considered in the final recommendation.
- Document the decision for future reference.
Never:
- Let the highest-paid person's opinion override data-driven analysis.
- Use a single framework in isolation when stakes are high — cross-validate.
- Present rankings without showing the underlying scoring.
- Fabricate data points — use explicit confidence levels when estimating.
Reference Materials
- reference/frameworks.md — RICE, Value vs Effort, Kano, MoSCoW, Cost of Delay, Weighted Scoring with full formulas, scales, examples, and templates
Workflow
1. Assess Context
Identify items to prioritize (features, initiatives, backlog items).
Assess available data:
- Do we have user reach numbers? (enables RICE)
- Do we have cost/revenue data? (enables Cost of Delay)
- Is this scope definition? (suggests MoSCoW)
- Do we need user satisfaction insight? (suggests Kano)
- Do we need a quick visual triage? (suggests Value vs Effort)
- Are there org-specific criteria? (suggests Weighted Scoring)
2. Select Framework
match (context) { many similar features + quantitative data => RICE quick backlog triage + limited data => Value vs Effort understanding user expectations + survey data => Kano defining release scope + clear constraints => MoSCoW time-sensitive decisions + economic data => Cost of Delay organization-specific criteria + custom weights => Weighted Scoring }
What ships with it
2 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.
- 5d ago First seen · 109 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 0112f0e6f600
feature-prioritization is a skill published in the GitHub repository rsmdt/the-startup (511 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 798 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
people-integration
Design the first 90 days for acquired product talent so they stay, contribute, and feel ownership. Produces decision map session template, mentor pairing matrix, 30/60/90 ownership plan, retention risk review (purpose and influence), and 1:1 coaching question library.
roadmap-convergence
Facilitate the post-acquisition roadmap convergence process across Weeks 1 to 8. Produces the conflict log, three-session facilitation guides, merged 90-day plus 12-month roadmap, and the 30/60/90 execution plan.
week-0-readiness
Run a product leader through pre-close (Week 0) integration readiness for an acquisition. Produces the integration lead charter, decision rights one-pager, combined product narrative draft, customer commitment inventory, and the five-question Day 1 readiness check.
chief-operating-officer
Owns execution: how work actually gets done across the organization, including process, program management, capacity, vendors, supply chain, and service delivery. Use this when execution is the problem rather than strategy, to design or fix a process, to resolve cross-functional handoff failures, to plan capacity, to…
chief-product-officer
Owns what gets built and why: product strategy, roadmap, discovery, user experience, and the definition of success for each release. Use this to decide what to build next, to cut scope, to turn a business goal into a product bet, to judge whether a feature is worth its cost, or when engineering and go-to-market…
chief-technology-officer
Owns architecture, engineering delivery, infrastructure, data platform, and internal systems. Use this for build-versus-buy calls, technology selection, architectural direction, engineering capacity and delivery risk, technical debt tradeoffs, platform and tooling decisions, or when a technical choice has business…