Prioritize

---
name: prioritize
description: '[Project Management] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for backlog prioritization: RICE, MoSCoW or Value-Effort ranking.'
---

> Codex compatibility note:
> - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references.
> - Host-native execution: Codex runs a skill by loading its `SKILL.md` instructions and executing the required steps with available tools. No separate `Skill` tool is required; a loaded skill is already activated.
> - Source vs execution: prefer the registered `.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` for Codex execution. `.claude/**` remains the canonical authoring source; reading it for a registry or source inspection does not switch this session to Claude Code.
> - Capability check: interpret Claude tool names through the active host before declaring a blocker. Continue when Codex can perform the required operation; stop and ask only when the actual capability is unavailable, naming the step and evidence. Host-native execution is not a protocol deviation and needs no extra approval.
> - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
> - Use ask user tool to ask user.
> - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
> - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
> - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task.
> - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
> - For workflow skills, steps follow the guided contract in `$start-workflow` (gate steps fixed; other steps may flex with a logged reason); report step-by-step evidence.
> - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.
<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

> **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval.
> **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set `in_progress` when step starts, set `completed` when step ends.
> **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason.
> **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Produce a defensible ranked ordering of 3+ backlog items using RICE, MoSCoW, or Value-Effort frameworks so the team works highest-value items first — every rank backed by a score and tech-agnostic rationale (value/effort/risk/impact).

**Summary:**

- **1. Track + detect/collect** — track each declared step (`in_progress` → `completed` + evidence); identify file/inline input and require ≥3 items; fewer → direct discussion, NEVER force a framework.
- **2. Select + score** — honor a specified framework; otherwise RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder alignment, Value-Effort 2x2 for a quick call; default RICE when unsure; apply exact criteria, formula, and scales.
- **3. Rank + report** — rank by framework; emit a prioritized table with scores, tech-agnostic value/effort/risk/business-impact rationale, and Do-first/Plan-next/Defer recommendations.
- **4. Propagate + tie gate** — when PBI files exist, write `rank` (1–999) + `priority` to EACH PBI frontmatter; near-tie/disagreement → ask user tool for `$llm-council` vs accept, otherwise end without prompting.

**Workflow:**

1. **Collect Items** — read files or parse inline list; require ≥3 items
2. **Select Framework** — use RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder alignment, or Value-Effort for a quick decision
3. **Score Each Item** — apply exact framework criteria and calculate scores
4. **Rank & Report** — emit prioritized table, rationale, and recommendations
5. **Propagate Priority** — if PBI files exist, MANDATORY write `rank` + `priority` to EACH PBI frontmatter
6. **Tie Gate** — near-tie → ask user tool (`$llm-council` vs accept); otherwise end without prompting

**Key Rules:**

- Require ≥3 items; fewer → discuss directly, NEVER force a framework.
- Honor a user-specified framework; otherwise default to RICE when unsure and ask when ambiguous.

> **AI-SDD Artifact Contract** — M1–M7 are blocking: M1/M2 keep rationale tech-agnostic and source identifiers in evidence carriers; M3 uses logical IDs with abstract anchors; M4–M5 require unambiguous, rebuildable behavior; M6 makes review violations explicit; M7 requires demoable business outcomes.
> MUST ATTENTION READ `.claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` for full mandate and carrier rules.

- **Tech-agnostic rationale (M1):** justify every ranking by value, effort, risk, and business impact — NOT implementation technology. Rationale prose stays tech-agnostic per `spec-principles.md` §3 in the reference-docs root (default `docs/project-reference`; a `docsRoots.projectReference.path` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path): no framework/product/language/design-pattern names; effort may cite story points and relative complexity, never a named stack.
- **PBI propagation:** when PBI files exist, write numeric `rank` (1–999, ascending) and `priority` label to EACH PBI frontmatter; this is mandatory, not optional.

Apply critical/sequential thinking; every claim needs traced proof and confidence >80% to act.

# Backlog Prioritization

Use a data-driven framework → ranked list with scores + rationale.

## When to Use

- Sprint planning needs ordered backlog (≥3 items)
- Stakeholder priority ranking needs justification
- Feature roadmap needs objective ordering
- Competing features or initiatives need comparison

## When NOT to Use

- Fewer than 3 items → discuss directly
- Creating PBIs or stories → use `pbi --mode=refine` or `pbi --mode=story`
- Full product strategy → use `idea` then `pbi --mode=refine`

## Phase 0: Detect & Prepare

- Input: ≥3 backlog items (PBIs, features, user stories), from `pbis/` under the team-artifacts root (default `team-artifacts`; a `docsRoots.teamArtifacts.path` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), a user path, or inline descriptions.
- Record any specified framework and available quantitative, stakeholder-alignment, or quick-decision signal.
- Fewer than 3 items → ask for more or discuss directly; NEVER force a framework.

## Workflow

1. **Collect items**
    - If a file path is provided, read items from files.
    - If an inline list is provided, parse items from the user message.
    - If fewer than 3 items, ask for more or suggest direct discussion.

2. **Select framework** using decision tree:

    ```
    IF quantitative data available (reach, metrics)  -> RICE
    IF stakeholder alignment needed (must/should/could) -> MoSCoW
    IF quick decision needed (2 axes only)            -> Value-Effort 2x2
    IF user specifies framework                       -> use that framework
    IF unsure                                         -> ask user, default RICE
    ```

3. **Score each item** using selected framework:

    **RICE:**

    ```
    Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

    Reach:      Users affected per quarter (number)
    Impact:     0.25 (minimal) | 0.5 (low) | 1 (medium) | 2 (high) | 3 (massive)
    Confidence: 0.5 (low) | 0.8 (medium) | 1.0 (high)
    Effort:     Story points (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21)
    ```

    **MoSCoW:**

    ```
    Must Have:   Critical for release, non-negotiable
    Should Have: Important but not vital, workarounds exist
    Could Have:  Desirable, include if capacity allows
    Won't Have:  Out of scope for this cycle
    ```

    **Value-Effort 2x2:**

    ```
    High Value + Low Effort  = Quick Wins    (do first)
    High Value + High Effort = Strategic     (plan carefully)
    Low Value  + Low Effort  = Fill-ins      (if time permits)
    Low Value  + High Effort = Time Sinks    (avoid)
    ```

4. **Rank items** by score (descending for RICE, category for MoSCoW, quadrant for V-E)

5. **Output** prioritized list with scores and rationale

6. **IF PBI files exist** -> **MANDATORY priority propagation**: write the resulting priority back into EACH PBI's frontmatter — both the numeric `rank` (1-999, ascending) and the `priority` label (e.g. Must Have / Should Have / Could Have / Won't Have, or the framework's category). Never leave this optional when PBI files exist: a PBI without its priority is incomplete, and downstream consumers (`pbi --mode=mockup` header badge, `feature-presentation` Scope & backlog slide) read priority FROM the PBI frontmatter. Update every ranked PBI, not just the standalone backlog file.

## Output Format

```markdown
## Prioritized Backlog

**Framework:** [RICE | MoSCoW | Value-Effort]
**Date:** [YYMMDD]
**Items scored:** [count]

### Rankings

| Rank | Item      | Score | Rationale                                           |
| ---- | --------- | ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
| 1    | Feature A | 45.0  | High reach (5000), high impact (3), high confidence |
| 2    | Feature B | 12.0  | Medium reach (2000), medium impact, low effort      |
| 3    | Feature C | 2.5   | Low reach, minimal impact, high effort              |

### Recommendations

- **Do first:** [top items]
- **Plan next:** [medium items]
- **Defer:** [low items with reasoning]
```

## Examples

### Example 1: RICE scoring of 5 features

**Input:** "Prioritize: SSO login, dark mode, export to PDF, email notifications, bulk import"

**Output:**

| Rank | Feature             | Reach | Impact | Conf | Effort | RICE |
| ---- | ------------------- | ----- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ---- |
| 1    | Email notifications | 5000  | 2      | 0.8  | 1      | 8000 |
| 2    | SSO login           | 2000  | 3      | 0.8  | 3      | 1600 |
| 3    | Bulk import         | 500   | 2      | 1.0  | 1      | 1000 |
| 4    | Export to PDF       | 1000  | 1      | 0.8  | 2      | 400  |
| 5    | Dark mode           | 3000  | 0.5    | 0.5  | 2      | 375  |

### Example 2: MoSCoW categorization

**Input:** "Categorize for Q1 release: payment gateway, admin dashboard redesign, API rate limiting, user avatars, audit logs"

**Output:**

- **Must Have:** Payment gateway (revenue-critical), API rate limiting (security)
- **Should Have:** Audit logs (compliance, workaround exists with manual exports)
- **Could Have:** Admin dashboard redesign (improves efficiency but current works)
- **Won't Have:** User avatars (nice-to-have, defer to Q2)

## Optional Escalation: $llm-council on Ties

**Gate evaluation:** After producing prioritized backlog (per `## Workflow` step output), inspect ranking output:

- Top-2 RICE scores within 15% of each other → gate fires
- Explicit MoSCoW tie (≥2 items in same Must/Should/Could band with material scope overlap) → gate fires
- Multi-stakeholder disagreement flagged in input → gate fires
- None of the above → gate does NOT fire; skill ends without prompting

**MANDATORY ATTENTION** — when the gate fires, you MUST use ask user tool to present these options (identical preamble pattern to `architecture --mode=design`'s `## Next Steps` MANDATORY ATTENTION block):

- **"Escalate to $llm-council (Recommended)"** — Tie/disagreement detected. Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Council's Contrarian + Outsider lenses are well-suited to multi-PBI ranking ties. Cheaper alternatives: `$why-review`, `$plan --mode=validate` (use these instead if the tie is narrow but stakes are routine).
- **"Skip — accept current ranking"** — Acknowledge the tie; proceed with current ranking.

If gate does NOT fire, the prioritization decision stands; do NOT prompt.

## Related Skills

| Skill             | When to use instead                |
| ----------------- | ---------------------------------- |
| `idea`            | Capturing product intent upfront   |
| `pbi --mode=story`  | Breaking PBIs into user stories    |
| `pbi --mode=refine` | Refining ideas into PBIs           |

---

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->

## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Produce a defensible ranked ordering of 3+ backlog items using RICE, MoSCoW, or Value-Effort frameworks so the team works highest-value items first — every rank backed by a score and tech-agnostic rationale (value/effort/risk/impact).

**Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):**


- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** require 3+ items BEFORE ranking; fewer than 3 → discuss directly, NEVER force a framework — why: ranking 1-2 items adds ceremony without signal
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** select the framework by the decision tree — RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder must/should/could alignment, Value-Effort 2x2 for a quick call; default RICE when unsure, ask the user when ambiguous — why: matching framework to the decision type is what makes the ranking defensible
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** emit the prioritized table (scores + rationale) AND Do-first/Plan-next/Defer recommendations — NEVER stop at raw scores — why: the consumable output is the ranked table plus an action call, not a number column
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** keep every rationale tech-agnostic per M1 — justify by value/effort/risk/business impact, NEVER by named stack/framework/product/language/design-pattern; effort may cite story points + relative complexity only — why: spec-principles §3 BLOCKING, a tech-named rationale leaks implementation into a priority call
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** score with the EXACT framework formula (RICE = Reach×Impact×Confidence ÷ Effort, fixed Impact/Confidence scales, story-point Effort), then rank descending (RICE) / by band (MoSCoW) / by quadrant (V-E) — NEVER invent ad-hoc scores — why: a defensible rank needs a reproducible number
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** on a near-tie (top-2 RICE within 15%, same-band MoSCoW overlap, flagged stakeholder disagreement) the gate FIRES — use ask user tool to offer `$llm-council` escalation vs. accepting the ranking; if the gate does NOT fire, end WITHOUT prompting — why: tie-breaking is a judgment call the user owns, but a clear winner needs no interruption
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting; mark one `in_progress`, `completed` immediately after evidence
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** search codebase/artifacts for 3+ similar patterns before creating new structure; evaluate pattern FIT (same constraints/scope) before copying a nearby example — why: closest example ≠ matching preconditions
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend); NEVER present a guess as fact
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** when PBI files exist, propagating the ranking into EACH PBI's frontmatter (numeric `rank` 1-999 + `priority` label) is MANDATORY, not optional — do it after ranking; grep downstream consumers before changing any priority field — why: downstream consumers (`pbi --mode=mockup` header, `feature-presentation` Scope & backlog slide) read priority from PBI frontmatter, and stale/absent priority refs cascade silently
- **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add a final review todo task to verify work quality

**Anti-Rationalization:**

| Evasion                              | Rebuttal                                                                       |
| ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Only 2 items, just rank them"       | Below the 3-item floor → discuss directly; a framework adds ceremony, not signal |
| "I'll cite the framework in the rationale" | Tech-agnostic per M1 — justify by value/effort/risk only, never by named stack |
| "Scores are close enough, I'll pick" | Near-tie fires the gate → ask user tool for `$llm-council`, never silently break |
| "RICE feels right, skip the formula" | Apply the EXACT formula with fixed scales — a defensible rank needs a number   |
| "The backlog file has the ranking, PBIs don't need it" | When PBI files exist, priority write-back to each PBI frontmatter is MANDATORY — mockup + presentation read priority from the PBI, not the backlog |
| "Already know the patterns"          | Show `file:line` evidence — no proof = no search                              |
**[TASK-PLANNING]** Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

> **[IMPORTANT]** Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.

> **[IMPORTANT]** Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.