AgentSkillsCN

prioritization-frameworks

运用 RICE、ICE、WSJF、MoSCoW 等产品待办事项优先级排序框架。在为功能打分、对各项计划进行排序，或决定下一步该开发什么时使用。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: prioritization-frameworks
description: RICE, ICE, WSJF, MoSCoW and other prioritization frameworks for product backlogs. Use when scoring features, ranking initiatives, or deciding what to build next.
context: fork
agent: prioritization-analyst
version: 1.0.0
tags: [product, prioritization, rice, ice, wsjf, moscow, backlog, 2026]
author: OrchestKit
user-invocable: false

Prioritization Frameworks

Quantitative and qualitative frameworks for ranking features, initiatives, and backlog items.

RICE Framework

Developed by Intercom, RICE provides a data-driven score for comparing features.

Formula

code
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

Factors

FactorDefinitionScale
ReachUsers/customers affected per quarterActual number
ImpactEffect on individual user0.25 (minimal) to 3 (massive)
ConfidenceHow sure are you?0.5 (low) to 1.0 (high)
EffortPerson-months requiredActual estimate

Impact Scale

ScoreLevelDescription
3MassiveFundamental improvement
2HighSignificant improvement
1MediumNoticeable improvement
0.5LowMinor improvement
0.25MinimalBarely noticeable

Confidence Scale

ScoreLevelEvidence
1.0HighStrong data, validated
0.8MediumSome data, reasonable assumptions
0.5LowGut feeling, little data

Example Calculation

markdown
Feature: Smart search with AI suggestions

Reach: 50,000 users/quarter (active searchers)
Impact: 2 (high - significantly better results)
Confidence: 0.8 (tested in prototype)
Effort: 3 person-months

RICE = (50,000 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = 26,667

RICE Template

markdown
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score |
|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------------|
| Feature A | 10,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 8,000 |
| Feature B | 50,000 | 1 | 1.0 | 4 | 12,500 |
| Feature C | 5,000 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 7,500 |

ICE Framework

Simpler than RICE, ICE is ideal for fast prioritization.

Formula

code
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease

Factors (All 1-10 Scale)

FactorQuestion
ImpactHow much will this move the metric?
ConfidenceHow sure are we this will work?
EaseHow easy is this to implement?

Example

markdown
Feature: One-click checkout

Impact: 9 (directly increases conversion)
Confidence: 7 (similar features work elsewhere)
Ease: 4 (requires payment integration work)

ICE = 9 × 7 × 4 = 252

ICE vs RICE

AspectRICEICE
ComplexityMore detailedSimpler
Reach considerationExplicitImplicit in Impact
EffortPerson-months1-10 Ease scale
Best forData-driven teamsFast decisions

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)

SAFe framework optimizing for economic value delivery.

Formula

code
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size

Cost of Delay Components

code
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction
ComponentQuestionScale
User ValueHow much do users/business want this?1-21 (Fibonacci)
Time CriticalityDoes value decay over time?1-21
Risk ReductionDoes this reduce risk or enable opportunities?1-21
Job SizeRelative effort compared to other items1-21

Time Criticality Guidelines

ScoreSituation
21Must ship this quarter or lose the opportunity
13Competitor pressure, 6-month window
8Customer requested, flexible timeline
3Nice to have, no deadline
1Can wait indefinitely

Example

markdown
Feature: GDPR compliance update

User Value: 8 (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21 (regulatory deadline)
Risk Reduction: 13 (avoids fines)
Job Size: 8 (medium complexity)

Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25

MoSCoW Method

Qualitative prioritization for scope management.

Categories

PriorityMeaningGuideline
Must HaveNon-negotiable for release~60% of effort
Should HaveImportant but not critical~20% of effort
Could HaveNice to have if time permits~20% of effort
Won't HaveExplicitly out of scopeDocumented

Application Rules

  1. •Must Have items alone should deliver a viable product
  2. •Should Have items make product competitive
  3. •Could Have items delight users
  4. •Won't Have prevents scope creep

Template

markdown
## Release 1.0 MoSCoW

### Must Have (M)
- [ ] User authentication
- [ ] Core data model
- [ ] Basic CRUD operations

### Should Have (S)
- [ ] Search functionality
- [ ] Export to CSV
- [ ] Email notifications

### Could Have (C)
- [ ] Dark mode
- [ ] Keyboard shortcuts
- [ ] Custom themes

### Won't Have (W)
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI recommendations (Release 2.0)
- Multi-language support (Release 3.0)

Kano Model

Categorize features by customer satisfaction impact.

Categories

TypeAbsentPresentExample
Must-BeDissatisfiedNeutralLogin works
PerformanceDissatisfiedSatisfiedFast load times
DelightersNeutralDelightedAI suggestions
IndifferentNeutralNeutralAbout page design
ReverseSatisfiedDissatisfiedForced tutorials

Kano Survey Questions

For each feature, ask two questions:

  1. •"How would you feel if this feature was present?"
  2. •"How would you feel if this feature was absent?"

Answer options: Like it, Expect it, Neutral, Can tolerate, Dislike

Framework Selection Guide

SituationRecommended Framework
Data-driven team with metricsRICE
Fast startup decisionsICE
SAFe/Agile enterpriseWSJF
Fixed scope negotiationMoSCoW
Customer satisfaction focusKano
Strategic alignmentValue vs. Effort Matrix

Common Pitfalls

PitfallMitigation
Gaming the scoresCalibrate as a team regularly
Ignoring qualitative factorsUse frameworks as input, not gospel
Analysis paralysisSet time limits on scoring sessions
Inconsistent scalesDocument and share scoring guidelines

Practical Tips

  1. •Calibrate together: Score several items as a team to align understanding
  2. •Revisit regularly: Priorities shift—rescore quarterly
  3. •Document assumptions: Why did you give that Impact score?
  4. •Combine frameworks: Use ICE for quick triage, RICE for final decisions

Related Skills

  • •product-strategy-frameworks - Strategic context for prioritization
  • •okr-kpi-patterns - Connect priorities to measurable goals
  • •requirements-engineering - Detailed specs for prioritized items

References

Version: 1.0.0 (January 2026)