autodoc-agent-kit 1.0.0

package/src/modules/product/skills/prioritization-advisor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,448 @@
+---
+name: prioritization-advisor
+description: Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs. Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach.
+intent: >-
+  Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
+type: interactive
+best_for:
+  - "Choosing the right prioritization framework for a team or stage"
+  - "Deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, and similar models"
+  - "Reducing debate about how to prioritize competing work"
+scenarios:
+  - "Which prioritization framework should my startup use right now?"
+  - "Help me choose between RICE and value/effort for roadmap planning"
+  - "We keep arguing about prioritization. Recommend a framework."
+---
+
+
+## Purpose
+Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
+
+This is not a scoring calculator—it's a decision guide that matches prioritization frameworks to your specific situation.
+
+## Key Concepts
+
+### The Prioritization Framework Landscape
+Common frameworks and when to use them:
+
+**Scoring frameworks:**
+- **RICE** (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) — Data-driven, requires metrics
+- **ICE** (Impact, Confidence, Ease) — Lightweight, gut-check scoring
+- **Value vs. Effort** (2x2 matrix) — Quick wins vs. strategic bets
+- **Weighted Scoring** — Custom criteria with stakeholder input
+
+**Strategic frameworks:**
+- **Kano Model** — Classify features by customer delight (basic, performance, delight)
+- **Opportunity Scoring** — Rate importance vs. satisfaction gap
+- **Buy-a-Feature** — Customer budget allocation exercise
+- **Moscow** (Must, Should, Could, Won't) — Forcing function for hard choices
+
+**Contextual frameworks:**
+- **Cost of Delay** — Urgency-based (time-sensitive features)
+- **Impact Mapping** — Goal-driven (tie features to outcomes)
+- **Story Mapping** — User journey-based (narrative flow)
+
+### Why This Works
+- **Context-aware:** Matches framework to product stage, team maturity, data availability
+- **Anti-dogmatic:** No single "best" framework—it depends on your situation
+- **Actionable:** Provides implementation steps, not just framework names
+
+### Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
+- **Not a universal ranking:** Frameworks aren't "better" or "worse"—they fit different contexts
+- **Not a replacement for strategy:** Frameworks execute strategy; they don't create it
+- **Not set-it-and-forget-it:** Reassess frameworks as your product matures
+
+### When to Use This
+- Choosing a prioritization framework for the first time
+- Switching frameworks (current one isn't working)
+- Aligning stakeholders on prioritization process
+- Onboarding new PMs to team practices
+
+### When NOT to Use This
+- When you already have a working framework (don't fix what isn't broken)
+- For one-off decisions (frameworks are for recurring prioritization)
+- As a substitute for strategic vision (frameworks can't tell you what to build)
+
+---
+
+### Facilitation Source of Truth
+
+Use [`workshop-facilitation`](../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
+
+It defines:
+- session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
+- one-question turns with plain-language prompts
+- progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
+- interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
+- numbered recommendations at decision points
+- quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include `Other (specify)` when useful)
+
+This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
+
+## Application
+
+This interactive skill asks **up to 4 adaptive questions**, offering **3-4 enumerated options** at each step.
+
+---
+
+### Question 1: Product Stage
+
+**Agent asks:**
+"What stage is your product in?"
+
+**Offer 4 enumerated options:**
+
+1. **Pre-product/market fit** — "Searching for PMF; experimenting rapidly; unclear what customers want" (High uncertainty, need speed)
+2. **Early PMF, scaling** — "Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand" (Moderate uncertainty, balancing speed + quality)
+3. **Mature product, optimization** — "Established market; incremental improvements; competing on quality/features" (Low uncertainty, data-driven decisions)
+4. **Multiple products/platform** — "Portfolio of products; cross-product dependencies; complex stakeholder needs" (Coordination complexity)
+
+**Or describe your product stage (new idea, growth mode, established, etc.).**
+
+**User response:** [Selection or custom]
+
+---
+
+### Question 2: Team Context
+
+**Agent asks:**
+"What's your team and stakeholder environment like?"
+
+**Offer 4 enumerated options:**
+
+1. **Small team, limited resources** — "3-5 engineers, 1 PM, need to focus ruthlessly" (Need simple, fast framework)
+2. **Cross-functional team, aligned** — "Product, design, engineering aligned; clear goals; good collaboration" (Can use data-driven frameworks)
+3. **Multiple stakeholders, misaligned** — "Execs, sales, customers all have opinions; need transparent process" (Need consensus-building framework)
+4. **Large org, complex dependencies** — "Multiple teams, shared roadmap, cross-team dependencies" (Need coordination framework)
+
+**Or describe your team/stakeholder context.**
+
+**User response:** [Selection or custom]
+
+---
+
+### Question 3: Decision-Making Needs
+
+**Agent asks:**
+"What's the primary challenge you're trying to solve with prioritization?"
+
+**Offer 4 enumerated options:**
+
+1. **Too many ideas, unclear which to pursue** — "Backlog is 100+ items; need to narrow to top 10" (Need filtering framework)
+2. **Stakeholders disagree on priorities** — "Sales wants features, execs want strategic bets, engineering wants tech debt" (Need alignment framework)
+3. **Lack of data-driven decisions** — "Prioritizing by gut feel; want metrics-based process" (Need scoring framework)
+4. **Hard tradeoffs between strategic bets vs. quick wins** — "Balancing long-term vision vs. short-term customer needs" (Need value/effort framework)
+
+**Or describe your specific challenge.**
+
+**User response:** [Selection or custom]
+
+---
+
+### Question 4: Data Availability
+
+**Agent asks:**
+"How much data do you have to inform prioritization?"
+
+**Offer 3 enumerated options:**
+
+1. **Minimal data** — "New product, no usage metrics, few customers to survey" (Gut-based frameworks)
+2. **Some data** — "Basic analytics, customer feedback, but no rigorous data collection" (Lightweight scoring frameworks)
+3. **Rich data** — "Usage metrics, A/B tests, customer surveys, clear success metrics" (Data-driven frameworks)
+
+**Or describe your data situation.**
+
+**User response:** [Selection or custom]
+
+---
+
+### Output: Recommend Prioritization Framework
+
+After collecting responses, the agent recommends a framework:
+
+```markdown
+# Prioritization Framework Recommendation
+
+**Based on your context:**
+- **Product Stage:** [From Q1]
+- **Team Context:** [From Q2]
+- **Decision-Making Need:** [From Q3]
+- **Data Availability:** [From Q4]
+
+---
+
+## Recommended Framework: [Framework Name]
+
+**Why this framework fits:**
+- [Rationale 1 based on Q1-Q4]
+- [Rationale 2]
+- [Rationale 3]
+
+**When to use it:**
+- [Context where this framework excels]
+
+**When NOT to use it:**
+- [Limitations or contexts where it fails]
+
+---
+
+## How to Implement
+
+### Step 1: [First implementation step]
+- [Detailed guidance]
+- [Example: "Define scoring criteria: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort"]
+
+### Step 2: [Second step]
+- [Detailed guidance]
+- [Example: "Score each feature on 1-10 scale"]
+
+### Step 3: [Third step]
+- [Detailed guidance]
+- [Example: "Calculate RICE score: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort"]
+
+### Step 4: [Fourth step]
+- [Detailed guidance]
+- [Example: "Rank by score; review top 10 with stakeholders"]
+
+---
+
+## Example Scoring Template
+
+[Provide a concrete example of how to use the framework]
+
+**Example (if RICE):**
+
+| Feature | Reach (users/month) | Impact (1-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-months) | RICE Score |
+|---------|---------------------|--------------|----------------|------------------------|------------|
+| Feature A | 10,000 | 3 (massive) | 80% | 2 | 12,000 |
+| Feature B | 5,000 | 2 (high) | 70% | 1 | 7,000 |
+| Feature C | 2,000 | 1 (medium) | 50% | 0.5 | 2,000 |
+
+**Priority:** Feature A > Feature B > Feature C
+
+---
+
+## Alternative Framework (Second Choice)
+
+**If the recommended framework doesn't fit, consider:** [Alternative framework name]
+
+**Why this might work:**
+- [Rationale]
+
+**Tradeoffs:**
+- [What you gain vs. what you lose]
+
+---
+
+## Common Pitfalls with This Framework
+
+1. **[Pitfall 1]** — [Description and how to avoid]
+2. **[Pitfall 2]** — [Description and how to avoid]
+3. **[Pitfall 3]** — [Description and how to avoid]
+
+---
+
+## Reassess When
+
+- Product stage changes (e.g., PMF → scaling)
+- Team grows or reorganizes
+- Stakeholder dynamics shift
+- Current framework feels broken (e.g., too slow, ignoring important factors)
+
+---
+
+**Would you like implementation templates or examples for this framework?**
+```
+
+---
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Good Framework Match (Early PMF, RICE)
+
+**Q1 Response:** "Early PMF, scaling — Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand"
+
+**Q2 Response:** "Cross-functional team, aligned — Product, design, engineering aligned; clear goals"
+
+**Q3 Response:** "Lack of data-driven decisions — Prioritizing by gut feel; want metrics-based process"
+
+**Q4 Response:** "Some data — Basic analytics, customer feedback, but no rigorous data collection"
+
+---
+
+**Recommended Framework: RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort)**
+
+**Why this fits:**
+- You have some data (analytics, customer feedback) to estimate Reach and Impact
+- Cross-functional team alignment means you can agree on scoring criteria
+- Transitioning from gut feel to data-driven = RICE provides structure without overwhelming complexity
+- Early PMF stage = need speed, but also need to prioritize high-impact features for retention/expansion
+
+**When to use it:**
+- Quarterly or monthly roadmap planning
+- When backlog exceeds 20-30 items
+- When stakeholders debate priorities
+
+**When NOT to use it:**
+- For strategic, multi-quarter bets (RICE favors incremental wins)
+- When you lack basic metrics (Reach requires usage data)
+- For single-feature decisions (overkill)
+
+---
+
+**Implementation:**
+
+### Step 1: Define Scoring Criteria
+- **Reach:** How many users will this feature affect per month/quarter?
+- **Impact:** How much will it improve their experience? (1 = minimal, 2 = high, 3 = massive)
+- **Confidence:** How confident are you in your Reach/Impact estimates? (50% = low data, 80% = good data, 100% = certain)
+- **Effort:** How many person-months to build? (Include design, engineering, QA)
+
+### Step 2: Score Each Feature
+- Use a spreadsheet or Airtable
+- Involve PM, design, engineering in scoring (not just PM solo)
+- Be honest about Confidence (don't inflate scores)
+
+### Step 3: Calculate RICE Score
+- Formula: `(Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort`
+- Higher score = higher priority
+
+### Step 4: Review and Adjust
+- Sort by RICE score
+- Review top 10-20 with stakeholders
+- Adjust for strategic priorities (RICE doesn't capture everything)
+
+---
+
+**Example Scoring:**
+
+| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score |
+|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------------|
+| Email reminders | 5,000 | 2 | 70% | 1 | 7,000 |
+| Mobile app | 10,000 | 3 | 60% | 6 | 3,000 |
+| Dark mode | 8,000 | 1 | 90% | 0.5 | 14,400 |
+
+**Priority:** Dark mode > Email reminders > Mobile app (despite mobile app having high Reach/Impact, Effort is too high)
+
+---
+
+**Alternative Framework: ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease)**
+
+**Why this might work:**
+- Simpler than RICE (no Reach calculation)
+- Faster to score (good if you need quick decisions)
+
+**Tradeoffs:**
+- Less data-driven (no Reach metric = can't compare features affecting different user bases)
+- More subjective (Impact/Ease are gut-feel, not metrics)
+
+---
+
+**Common Pitfalls:**
+
+1. **Overweighting Effort** — Don't avoid hard problems just because they score low. Some strategic bets require high effort.
+2. **Inflating Confidence** — Be honest. 50% confidence is okay if data is scarce.
+3. **Ignoring strategy** — RICE doesn't capture strategic importance. Adjust for vision/goals.
+
+---
+
+### Example 2: Bad Framework Match (Pre-PMF + RICE = Wrong Fit)
+
+**Q1 Response:** "Pre-product/market fit — Searching for PMF; experimenting rapidly"
+
+**Q2 Response:** "Small team, limited resources — 3 engineers, 1 PM"
+
+**Q3 Response:** "Too many ideas, unclear which to pursue"
+
+**Q4 Response:** "Minimal data — New product, no usage metrics"
+
+---
+
+**Recommended Framework: ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) or Value/Effort Matrix**
+
+**Why NOT RICE:**
+- You don't have usage data to estimate Reach
+- Pre-PMF = you need speed, not rigorous scoring
+- Small team = overhead of RICE scoring is too heavy
+
+**Why ICE instead:**
+- Lightweight, gut-check framework
+- Can score 20 ideas in 30 minutes
+- Good for rapid experimentation phase
+
+**Or Value/Effort Matrix:**
+- Visual 2x2 matrix (high value/low effort = quick wins)
+- Even faster than ICE
+- Good for stakeholder alignment (visual, intuitive)
+
+---
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Pitfall 1: Using the Wrong Framework for Your Stage
+**Symptom:** Pre-PMF startup using weighted scoring with 10 criteria
+
+**Consequence:** Overhead kills speed. You need experiments, not rigorous scoring.
+
+**Fix:** Match framework to stage. Pre-PMF = ICE or Value/Effort. Scaling = RICE. Mature = Opportunity Scoring or Kano.
+
+---
+
+### Pitfall 2: Framework Whiplash
+**Symptom:** Switching frameworks every quarter
+
+**Consequence:** Team confusion, lost time, no consistency.
+
+**Fix:** Stick with one framework for 6-12 months. Reassess only when stage/context changes.
+
+---
+
+### Pitfall 3: Treating Scores as Gospel
+**Symptom:** "Feature A scored 8,000, Feature B scored 7,999, so A wins"
+
+**Consequence:** Ignores strategic context, judgment, and vision.
+
+**Fix:** Use frameworks as input, not automation. PM judgment overrides scores when needed.
+
+---
+
+### Pitfall 4: Solo PM Scoring
+**Symptom:** PM scores features alone, presents to team
+
+**Consequence:** Lack of buy-in, engineering/design don't trust scores.
+
+**Fix:** Collaborative scoring sessions. PM, design, engineering score together.
+
+---
+
+### Pitfall 5: No Framework at All
+**Symptom:** "We prioritize by who shouts loudest"
+
+**Consequence:** HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) wins, not data or strategy.
+
+**Fix:** Pick *any* framework. Even imperfect structure beats chaos.
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+### Related Skills
+- `user-story.md` — Prioritized features become user stories
+- `epic-hypothesis.md` — Prioritized epics validated with experiments
+- `recommendation-canvas.md` — Business outcomes inform prioritization
+
+### External Frameworks
+- Intercom, *RICE Prioritization* (2016) — Origin of RICE framework
+- Sean McBride, *ICE Scoring* (2012) — Lightweight prioritization
+- Luke Hohmann, *Innovation Games* (2006) — Buy-a-Feature and other collaborative methods
+- Noriaki Kano, *Kano Model* (1984) — Customer satisfaction framework
+
+### Dean's Work
+- [If Dean has prioritization resources, link here]
+
+---
+
+**Skill type:** Interactive
+**Suggested filename:** `prioritization-advisor.md`
+**Suggested placement:** `/skills/interactive/`
+**Dependencies:** None (standalone, but informs roadmap and backlog decisions)