@shaykec/bridge 0.4.25 → 0.4.26

package/modules/one-on-ones/exercises.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# Effective 1:1s — Exercises
+
+## Exercise 1: Create a 1:1 Template
+
+**Task:** Design a shared-doc template for 1:1s with a new direct report. Include: agenda sections (theirs first, yours, career), 2–3 prompt questions per section, and a notes/action-items area. Make it copy-paste ready.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Report's topics appear first
+- [ ] Career/growth has dedicated space
+- [ ] Prompts are open-ended and practical
+- [ ] Template is usable in Notion, Google Docs, or similar
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Start with "What's the best use of our time today?" as an opener
+2. Career section: "What would you like to be doing in 18 months?" "What's one skill you want to develop?"
+3. Your section: feedback, updates, decisions you need from them
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 2: Diagnose a Failing 1:1
+
+**Task:** You have a 1:1 that feels flat—your report says "nothing to discuss," you default to status updates, and it often gets cancelled. Write a diagnosis (what's wrong) and a 3-step fix.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] At least 2 root causes identified
+- [ ] Fix includes preparation (shared doc) and agenda structure
+- [ ] Fix addresses cancellation (e.g., "1:1s are sacrosanct")
+
+**Hints:**
+1. "Nothing to discuss" often means no habit of prep; model it by adding your topics first
+2. Status updates → move those to standup; free 1:1 for growth/blockers
+3. Cancelling → reschedule same week; never drop
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 3: Practice Coaching Questions
+
+**Task:** Your report says: "I'm overwhelmed by the migration project. I don't know where to start." Write the answer you'd usually give. Then rewrite it as 4 Socratic questions that help them think it through.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Questions are open-ended (not yes/no)
+- [ ] Questions lead toward a plan without you giving the plan
+- [ ] You could use these in a real 1:1
+
+**Hints:**
+1. "What have you tried so far?" "What's the smallest slice you could ship?"
+2. "What would success look like in 2 weeks?" "Who could help?"
+3. Avoid: "You should break it into phases" — turn that into a question
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 4: Feedback in 1:1s
+
+**Task:** You need to give feedback: "Your presentations are too long; stakeholders tune out." Write it using SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact). Then add one follow-up question that invites their input.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] SBI is specific (not vague)
+- [ ] Impact is stated (e.g., "stakeholders lose focus")
+- [ ] Follow-up invites collaboration ("What would you try differently?")
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Situation: "In last week's product review..."
+2. Behavior: "The deck was 25 slides; we ran 15 minutes over"
+3. Impact: "People started checking phones; we didn't get decisions"
+4. Follow-up: "What would make it more concise? Want to practice together?"
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 5: Anti-Pattern Role-Play
+
+**Task:** Write a 60-second "bad 1:1" script where the manager dominates with status questions and never asks about the report. Rewrite it as a 60-second "good" 1:1 where the report leads and the manager listens and asks one follow-up.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Bad script: manager talks 70%+, status-focused
+- [ ] Good script: report talks 70%+, manager asks open-ended questions
+- [ ] Difference is clear and teachable
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Bad: "So what did you finish? What's next? Any blockers? Okay, I need you to..."
+2. Good: "What's on your mind? ... Tell me more. ... What would help? ... I'll take that to leadership."
+3. Good = silence, "Tell me more," "What would you do?"

package/modules/one-on-ones/module.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+slug: one-on-ones
+title: "Effective 1:1s — Conversations That Build Trust and Growth"
+version: 1.0.0
+description: "Master one-on-ones: purpose, cadence, preparation, agenda structure, asking good questions, and common anti-patterns."
+category: leadership
+tags: [one-on-ones, management, feedback, career-growth, trust, coaching]
+difficulty: beginner
+
+xp:
+  read: 10
+  walkthrough: 30
+  exercise: 20
+  quiz: 15
+  quiz-perfect-bonus: 10
+
+time:
+  quick: 5
+  read: 15
+  guided: 40
+
+prerequisites: []
+related: [technical-mentoring, hiring-interviews]
+
+triggers:
+  - "How do I run effective 1:1s?"
+  - "What should I talk about in 1:1s?"
+  - "How do I give feedback in 1:1s?"
+  - "How often should I have 1:1s with my team?"
+
+visuals:
+  diagrams: [diagram-flow, diagram-mermaid]
+  quiz-types: [quiz-drag-order, quiz-timed-choice]
+  slides: true
+
+sources:
+  - label: "The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier"
+    type: book
+    url: "https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/the-managers-path/9781491973882/"
+  - label: "High Output Management by Andy Grove"
+    type: book
+    url: "https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/72467/high-output-management-by-andrew-s-grove/"
+  - label: "Lara Hogan's blog on management"
+    type: article
+    url: "https://larahogan.me/blog/"

package/modules/one-on-ones/quick-ref.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Effective 1:1s — Quick Reference
+
+## Purpose
+
+**Their meeting, not yours.** Build trust, support growth, surface blockers, give feedback.
+
+## Cadence
+
+| Situation | Cadence |
+|-----------|---------|
+| New team member | Weekly |
+| Established report | Biweekly |
+| Senior / autonomous | Biweekly or monthly |
+
+**Rule:** Never cancel for "no urgent topics." Reschedule, don't drop.
+
+## Agenda Order
+
+1. **Report's topics first** — Their concerns set the tone
+2. **Manager's topics** — Feedback, updates, decisions
+3. **Career / growth** — Dedicated time, don't rush
+4. **Action items** — Who does what; next 1:1 date
+
+## Preparation
+
+- **Shared doc** — Both add topics before the meeting
+- **Prompts** — "What's the best use of our time today?" "What's on your mind?"
+- **Notes** — Update doc during/after; track commitments
+
+## Conversation Types
+
+| Type | Your Role |
+|------|-----------|
+| Career growth | Ask questions; sponsor and advocate |
+| Feedback | SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact); ask what support they need |
+| Blockers | Help remove; don't solve for them |
+| Coaching | Questions > answers; Socratic method |
+| Venting | Listen; validate; don't fix |
+
+## Good Questions
+
+- "What's on your mind?" "What would make this week a success?"
+- "Tell me more." "What happened next?" "How did that feel?"
+- **Silence** — Wait 3–5 seconds after asking
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+| Avoid | Do Instead |
+|-------|------------|
+| Status updates only | Use standups for status |
+| Cancelling frequently | Reschedule; 1:1s are sacrosanct |
+| Only when things go wrong | Regular cadence builds trust |
+| Manager does all the talking | 70% report, 30% you |
+| No preparation | Shared doc; both add topics |
+| Rushing | Block 30–60 min |
+
+## Managing Up
+
+Your 1:1 with your manager is also *your* meeting. Prepare: wins, decisions you need, blockers, career asks.
+
+## Quick Tips
+
+1. Same time, same day — predictability
+2. Camera on (remote) — builds connection
+3. Take notes — in shared doc
+4. Follow up — do what you said you'd do
+5. Adjust over time — adapt cadence and structure

package/modules/one-on-ones/quiz.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Effective 1:1s — Quiz
+
+## Question 1
+
+Whose meeting is a 1:1?
+
+A) The manager's — they set the agenda
+B) The report's — they own the topics
+C) Equal — split 50/50
+D) Whoever has more urgent items
+
+<!-- ANSWER: B -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: A 1:1 is the report's meeting. The manager's job is to listen, ask questions, and support. The report should add topics first; their concerns set the tone. This builds trust and ensures the meeting serves their growth. -->
+
+## Question 2
+
+What cadence is recommended for a new team member?
+
+A) Monthly
+B) Biweekly
+C) Weekly
+D) Only when they ask
+
+<!-- ANSWER: C -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: New team members need more guidance and relationship-building. Weekly 1:1s help establish trust, surface blockers early, and accelerate onboarding. Biweekly is typical for established reports; senior folks may do biweekly or monthly. -->
+
+## Question 3
+
+What is the recommended order for 1:1 agenda topics?
+
+A) Manager's topics first, then report's
+B) Report's topics first, then manager's, then career
+C) Whatever is most urgent
+D) Status update, then open discussion
+
+<!-- ANSWER: B -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: Report's topics first. Their concerns, blockers, and ideas set the tone. Manager's topics (feedback, announcements) come second. Career and growth get dedicated time and shouldn't be rushed. This order signals that the report's needs matter most. -->
+
+## Question 4
+
+Which is an anti-pattern in 1:1s?
+
+A) Using a shared doc for preparation
+B) Cancelling when "there's nothing to discuss"
+C) Dedicating time to career growth
+D) Report's topics first
+
+<!-- ANSWER: B -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: Never cancel 1:1s for "no urgent topics." The meeting *is* the relationship. Cancelling frequently signals the meeting isn't important. Reschedule if needed, but don't drop. The other options are recommended practices. -->
+
+## Question 5
+
+When your report says they're "stuck," what should you do first?
+
+A) Give them the solution immediately
+B) Ask questions to help them think it through
+C) Assign someone else to help
+D) Table it for the next meeting
+
+<!-- ANSWER: B -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: Use coaching: ask questions (What have you tried? What's blocking you? What would success look like?) before giving answers. This builds their problem-solving skills and ownership. Direct answers have their place, but questions often yield better long-term growth. -->
+
+## Question 6
+
+What should you do after asking an open-ended question?
+
+A) Fill the silence with another question
+B) Wait 3–5 seconds for them to answer
+C) Answer it yourself if they hesitate
+D) Move to the next topic quickly
+
+<!-- ANSWER: B -->
+<!-- EXPLANATION: Silence is powerful. After asking, wait. Give them 3–5 seconds. People often fill silence with the real answer. Jumping in too fast signals you're not genuinely curious and can shut down deeper sharing. -->

package/modules/one-on-ones/resources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Effective 1:1s — Resources
+
+## Books
+
+- **The Manager's Path** by Camille Fournier — Chapter on 1:1s; "their meeting, not yours"; agenda structure.
+- **High Output Management** by Andy Grove — Classic on managerial leverage; 1:1s as highest-value activity.
+- **Radical Candor** by Kim Scott — Caring personally while challenging directly; feedback in 1:1s.
+- **The Making of a Manager** by Julie Zhuo — Practical 1:1 frameworks and questions.
+
+## Articles
+
+- [Lara Hogan — Demystifying the Engineering Manager](https://larahogan.me/blog/) — Blog posts on 1:1s, feedback, and management.
+- [Lara Hogan — Questions for Our First 1:1](https://larahogan.me/blog/first-one-on-one-questions/) — Opening questions for new reports.
+- [First Round Review — The 1:1 Meeting](https://review.firstround.com/) — Aggregated advice on 1:1 best practices.
+- [Will Larson — An Elegant Puzzle (excerpts)](https://lethain.com/) — 1:1 cadence, preparation, managing up.
+- [Manager-Tools — The One-on-One](https://www.manager-tools.com/) — Weekly 1:1 podcast; structured approach.
+
+## Videos
+
+- [LeadDev — How to Run Effective 1:1s](https://leaddev.com/) — Conference talks on 1:1 best practices.
+- [Talking with Tech Leads — 1:1 Meetings](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=1+on+1+meetings+tech+lead) — Practical tips from engineering managers.
+- [Lara Hogan — Demystifying Management](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lara+hogan+management) — Conference talks on management, including 1:1s.
+
+## Podcasts
+
+- [Manager Tools](https://www.manager-tools.com/) — The One-on-One podcast; 30+ min deep dive.
+- [Engineering Culture by InfoQ](https://www.infoq.com/podcasts/engineering-culture/) — Episodes on management and 1:1s.
+- [LeadDev podcast](https://leaddev.com/podcast) — Leadership and management topics.
+- [Lenny's Podcast](https://www.lennyspodcast.com/) — Product and eng leadership; 1:1 and feedback episodes.
+
+## Tools
+
+- [Lattice](https://lattice.com/) — 1:1 agenda templates, feedback, career growth tracking.
+- [Culture Amp](https://www.cultureamp.com/) — Engagement and 1:1 support.
+- [15Five](https://www.15five.com/) — Check-ins, 1:1 prompts, continuous feedback.
+- [Notion](https://www.notion.so/) — Shared doc templates for 1:1 agendas.
+- [Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/) — Simple shared agenda; widely accessible.

package/modules/one-on-ones/walkthrough.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Effective 1:1s — Walkthrough
+
+## Before We Begin
+
+**Diagnostic:** Why do you have 1:1s at all? In one sentence: what is the *primary purpose* of a 1:1 from the report's perspective (not the manager's)?
+
+**Checkpoint:** You can articulate a purpose that goes beyond "status" or "check-in"—something that would make a report *want* to show up prepared.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Design a 1:1 Template
+
+<!-- hint:list style="cards" -->
+
+**Task:** Create a shared-doc template for 1:1s. Include: sections for report's topics, your topics, career/growth, and notes. Add 2–3 example prompts or questions in each section to help both of you get started.
+
+**Question:** What would make this template actually *used* instead of abandoned after two meetings?
+
+**Checkpoint:** Template has clear sections and actionable prompts.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Map Your Cadence
+
+**Task:** List everyone you have 1:1s with. For each, decide: weekly, biweekly, or monthly? Justify in one sentence based on their situation (new, senior, high-touch project).
+
+**Question:** Are you over- or under-meeting with anyone? What would "just right" look like?
+
+**Checkpoint:** Cadence is set for each person; rationale is clear.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Turn One "Fix" Into Questions
+
+**Task:** Recall a recent 1:1 where your report was stuck on something and you jumped in with a solution. Rewrite that moment: what 3–4 questions could you have asked instead to help them think it through?
+
+**Question:** When would you still give the direct answer? When do questions work better?
+
+**Checkpoint:** You have both the solution and the question sequence; you can articulate when to use each.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4: Audit Your Anti-Patterns
+
+**Task:** Review your last 4–5 1:1s. Which anti-patterns apply? (Status-only, cancelling, manager-dominated, no prep, rushing.) Pick one to fix and write a concrete habit change.
+
+**Question:** What makes it hard to avoid that anti-pattern? What support do you need?
+
+**Checkpoint:** One anti-pattern identified; one concrete habit to change.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5: Design a "Career" Slot
+
+**Task:** In your 1:1 template, add a dedicated "Career / Growth" section. Write 3–4 questions you could ask in that slot (e.g., "What would you like to be doing in 18 months?" "What's one skill you want to develop?"). Plan to use it at least once per month.
+
+**Question:** How do you make career talk feel natural, not forced?
+
+**Checkpoint:** Career questions are in the template; you've committed to a cadence for using them.
+
+---
+
+## Step 6: Manage Up
+
+**Task:** Before your next 1:1 with your own manager, write 3 topics you want to cover. Include: something you need from them (decision, feedback, advocacy), something you're proud of, and one blocker or risk.
+
+**Question:** What happens when you show up without topics? What does your manager get from a prepared report?
+
+**Checkpoint:** You have 3 concrete topics for your next manager 1:1.

package/modules/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+{
+  "name": "@shaykec/modules",
+  "version": "0.1.2",
+  "description": "Learning modules — tutorials, references, and stories",
+  "publishConfig": {
+    "access": "public"
+  },
+  "license": "MIT"
+}

package/modules/prioritization-frameworks/content.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Prioritization — RICE, MoSCoW, and Impact Mapping
+
+<!-- hint:slides topic="Prioritization frameworks: RICE scoring, MoSCoW classification, Impact Mapping, and when to use each" slides="5" -->
+
+## Why Prioritization Is Hard
+
+Every product team has more ideas than capacity. Prioritization is the discipline of choosing what to build (and what to say no to) based on evidence rather than opinion. Without a framework, decisions default to whoever argues loudest.
+
+## RICE Scoring
+
+RICE gives each initiative a numeric score based on four factors:
+
+**Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort**
+
+| Factor | Definition | Scale |
+|--------|-----------|-------|
+| **Reach** | How many users/customers will this affect per quarter? | Number (e.g., 500 users) |
+| **Impact** | How much will it move the target metric per user? | 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal |
+| **Confidence** | How sure are you about the estimates above? | 100% = high, 80% = medium, 50% = low |
+| **Effort** | Person-months of work required | Number (e.g., 2 person-months) |
+
+### Example
+
+| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score |
+|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|-------|
+| Onboarding redesign | 2000 | 2 | 80% | 3 | 1067 |
+| Dark mode | 5000 | 0.5 | 100% | 1 | 2500 |
+| API v2 | 200 | 3 | 50% | 6 | 50 |
+
+Dark mode wins — high reach, low effort, even though impact per user is small.
+
+### When to Use RICE
+
+RICE works best when you have data for Reach and can estimate Effort. It struggles with exploratory or strategic initiatives where confidence is inherently low.
+
+## MoSCoW
+
+MoSCoW sorts features into four buckets for a specific release or timebox:
+
+| Bucket | Meaning | Guideline |
+|--------|---------|-----------|
+| **Must** | Non-negotiable. The release fails without these. | ~60% of effort |
+| **Should** | Important but not critical. Painful to leave out. | ~20% of effort |
+| **Could** | Nice to have. Include if time permits. | ~20% of effort |
+| **Won't** | Explicitly out of scope for this release. | 0% |
+
+### Key Principles
+
+1. **"Won't" is not "never"** — it means "not this time." Items can move to Must in the next cycle.
+2. **Start with Must** — define the minimum viable delivery first.
+3. **Time-box the discussion** — MoSCoW works best with constraints.
+
+### When to Use MoSCoW
+
+MoSCoW excels at scoping a fixed timebox (sprint, release, quarter). It's qualitative and fast — good for workshops with mixed stakeholders.
+
+## Impact Mapping
+
+Impact Mapping connects business goals to deliverables through a tree structure:
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+    Goal[Business Goal] --> Actor1[Actor 1]
+    Goal --> Actor2[Actor 2]
+    Actor1 --> Impact1[Impact 1]
+    Actor1 --> Impact2[Impact 2]
+    Actor2 --> Impact3[Impact 3]
+    Impact1 --> Del1[Deliverable A]
+    Impact2 --> Del2[Deliverable B]
+    Impact3 --> Del3[Deliverable C]
+```
+
+| Level | Question | Example |
+|-------|----------|---------|
+| **Goal** | Why are we doing this? | "Increase trial-to-paid conversion by 15%" |
+| **Actors** | Who can help or hinder? | New users, sales team, competitors |
+| **Impacts** | How should actor behavior change? | "New users understand value in first 5 minutes" |
+| **Deliverables** | What can we build to cause that impact? | Onboarding wizard, value dashboard |
+
+### When to Use Impact Mapping
+
+Impact mapping shines at the strategy level — connecting quarterly OKRs to actual features. It forces you to ask "why" before "what."
+
+## Value vs. Effort Matrix
+
+A simple 2×2 matrix for quick visual triage:
+
+| | Low Effort | High Effort |
+|---|-----------|-------------|
+| **High Value** | Quick wins — do first | Big bets — plan carefully |
+| **Low Value** | Fill-ins — do if idle | Money pit — avoid |
+
+Plot each feature on the matrix. Start top-left (quick wins), then tackle big bets.
+
+## Comparing Frameworks
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    Start[What are you prioritizing?] --> Q1{Numeric data available?}
+    Q1 -->|Yes| RICE[Use RICE]
+    Q1 -->|No| Q2{Fixed timebox?}
+    Q2 -->|Yes| MoSCoW[Use MoSCoW]
+    Q2 -->|No| Q3{Strategic alignment?}
+    Q3 -->|Yes| ImpactMap[Use Impact Mapping]
+    Q3 -->|No| ValueEffort[Use Value/Effort Matrix]
+```
+
+| Framework | Best For | Weakness |
+|-----------|----------|----------|
+| RICE | Backlog ranking with data | Requires numeric estimates |
+| MoSCoW | Scoping a release | Subjective bucket placement |
+| Impact Mapping | Connecting strategy to features | Time-consuming for small decisions |
+| Value/Effort | Quick triage in workshops | Oversimplifies complex trade-offs |
+
+## Communicating Prioritization Decisions
+
+The hardest part of prioritization isn't the framework — it's explaining "no" to stakeholders.
+
+1. **Show the data** — share the RICE scores or impact map
+2. **Explain trade-offs** — "We chose A over B because Reach is 10× higher"
+3. **Offer timelines** — "B is a Should for Q3" is better than "we're not doing B"
+4. **Invite input** — "Does this ranking match your understanding of customer pain?"
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Use one framework consistently** — switching frameworks mid-cycle confuses stakeholders
+2. **Re-prioritize regularly** — priorities shift as you learn more
+3. **Make "Won't" explicit** — unstated no's create misaligned expectations
+4. **Separate prioritization from estimation** — don't conflate "how important" with "how hard"
+5. **Document the reasoning** — future you will forget why X beat Y

package/modules/prioritization-frameworks/exercises.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Prioritization — Exercises
+
+## Exercise 1: RICE Calculation
+
+**Task:** Compute RICE scores for these three initiatives. Use the same timeframe (per quarter).
+
+- **A:** Reach 5,000, Impact 2, Confidence 80%, Effort 2 person-months
+- **B:** Reach 3,000, Impact 1, Confidence 100%, Effort 0.5 person-months
+- **C:** Reach 8,000, Impact 0.5, Confidence 50%, Effort 4 person-months
+
+Rank them. Then: Which initiative has the highest score, and why?
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] RICE formula applied correctly: (R × I × C) / E
+- [ ] A ≈ 4,000, B ≈ 6,000, C ≈ 500
+- [ ] Rank order: B, A, C
+- [ ] Explanation ties score to the formula
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Convert Confidence: 80% = 0.8, 100% = 1, 50% = 0.5
+2. A: (5000 × 2 × 0.8) / 2 = 4000
+3. B: (3000 × 1 × 1) / 0.5 = 6000
+4. C: (8000 × 0.5 × 0.5) / 4 = 500
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 2: MoSCoW Triage
+
+**Task:** You're planning a "v2 search" release. You have 8 items. Assign each to M/S/C/W. Enforce: max 3 Must, max 3 Should.
+
+Items: (1) Basic keyword search, (2) Filters, (3) Search suggestions, (4) Export results, (5) Save searches, (6) Analytics dashboard, (7) API for search, (8) Keyboard shortcuts.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] No more than 3 Must
+- [ ] No more than 3 Should
+- [ ] Could and Won't have at least one item each
+- [ ] Justification for at least 2 Must items
+
+**Hints:**
+1. "Basic keyword search" is likely Must—without it, there's no search
+2. "Export results" might be Should or Could depending on user needs
+3. "API for search" might be Won't for v2 if target is end-users first
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 3: Impact Map From Goal
+
+**Task:** Goal: "Reduce support tickets about 'how do I reset my password' by 30% in Q3." Build an impact map: 2 actors, 2 impacts per actor, 2 deliverables per impact.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Both actors are plausible contributors to the goal
+- [ ] Impacts describe behavior change, not features
+- [ ] Deliverables trace back to impacts
+- [ ] At least one assumption is stated explicitly
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Actors: users who forget passwords, support agents
+2. Impact for users: "successfully self-serve reset" vs "call support"
+3. Deliverables: clearer UX, email with reset link, in-app reset flow
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 4: Value vs Effort Plot
+
+**Task:** Take 6 initiatives. Define "value" (e.g., revenue impact, strategic fit) and "effort" (person-weeks) for your context. Plot each on a 2×2 matrix. Identify: 1 quick win, 1 big bet, 1 avoid.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Value and effort are defined before plotting
+- [ ] All 6 initiatives are placed
+- [ ] Quick win, big bet, and avoid are labeled and justified
+- [ ] "Avoid" item has a reason it's still on the list (or should be dropped)
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Quick win: high value, low effort — do first
+2. Big bet: high value, high effort — plan carefully
+3. Avoid: low value, high effort — don't build unless strategic
+
+---
+
+## Exercise 5: Defend a Priority
+
+**Task:** You've prioritized "Dark mode" over "Export to PDF" using RICE. A stakeholder says: "Export is critical for our enterprise users. How did you decide?" Write your response in 4–6 sentences.
+
+**Validation:**
+- [ ] Response references RICE (or your framework)
+- [ ] Explains why Dark mode scored higher (show the numbers)
+- [ ] Acknowledges the stakeholder's concern
+- [ ] Offers a path forward (e.g., re-score with different inputs, add to next quarter)
+
+**Hints:**
+1. Show your work: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort for both
+2. "Enterprise users" might change Reach if they're a distinct segment
+3. Offer to re-run with updated assumptions if they provide data

package/modules/prioritization-frameworks/module.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+slug: prioritization-frameworks
+title: "Prioritization — RICE, MoSCoW, and Impact Mapping"
+version: 1.0.0
+description: "Master RICE, MoSCoW, and Impact Mapping to prioritize features and defend decisions."
+category: product-management
+tags: [prioritization, rice, moscow, impact-mapping, product-strategy, roadmap]
+difficulty: intermediate
+
+xp:
+  read: 15
+  walkthrough: 40
+  exercise: 25
+  quiz: 20
+  quiz-perfect-bonus: 10
+
+time:
+  quick: 5
+  read: 20
+  guided: 50
+
+prerequisites: [writing-prds]
+related: [stakeholder-communication, sprint-planning]
+
+triggers:
+  - "How do I prioritize features?"
+  - "What is the RICE framework?"
+  - "How do I decide what to build next?"
+  - "What is MoSCoW prioritization?"
+
+visuals:
+  diagrams: [diagram-mermaid, diagram-flow]
+  quiz-types: [quiz-matching, quiz-timed-choice]
+  slides: true
+
+sources:
+  - url: "https://medium.com/intercom-inside/where-do-product-roadmaps-come-from-b526a9c60493"
+    label: "Intercom — Product Roadmaps"
+    type: article
+  - url: "https://www.productplan.com/glossary/rice-scoring-model/"
+    label: "ProductPlan — RICE Scoring"
+    type: docs