prioritization-frameworks — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited prioritization-frameworks (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Use this when the user has more potential work than capacity and needs to decide what to do next. The point of any framework here is not the score — it's that the framework forces hidden assumptions into a place where they can be challenged.
Strategy doc: If ~/bettersense-work-reflections/strategy/<area-slug>.md exists for the relevant area, read it before scoring. Items that fit a strategic track score one way; items that don't fit any track are candidates for the "not working on" list, not for the backlog. Ranking against tracks beats ranking against impact-confidence-effort in isolation.
Don't reflexively reach for RICE. Match the framework to the situation:
| Situation | Best fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Mixed backlog of features for one team | RICE | Balances reach, impact, confidence, effort. Default for product backlogs. |
| Same as above but you're moving fast / low rigor | ICE | RICE without Reach — quicker, more subjective. |
| Engineering-heavy backlog with cost-of-delay variance | WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) | Captures urgency and cost of delay, not just impact. |
| Need to communicate cuts to stakeholders | MoSCoW (Must / Should / Could / Won't) | Optimized for negotiation, not analysis. |
| Feature ideation, asking "what would users love?" | Kano | Distinguishes basic, performance, and delight features. |
| Time-sensitive features (launches, market windows) | Cost of Delay | Quantifies the cost of not shipping by date. |
| Two-option fork (A vs B) | Pros/cons + reversibility | Frameworks are overkill for binary calls. |
If the user starts with "let's RICE the backlog" before defining the situation, push back: which framework actually fits?
Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
Trap: scoring inflation. When everything is a 3, the framework adds nothing. Force a distribution.
Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease (each 1–10).
Faster than RICE, more subjective. Good for early-stage triage. Bad for defending a roadmap to stakeholders — too easy to challenge any individual score.
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
Where Cost of Delay = User/Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction & Opportunity Enablement.
Use when items have very different urgency profiles — e.g., a compliance deadline competing with a discovery initiative. WSJF will (correctly) prioritize the small urgent thing.
Sort items into Must, Should, Could, Won't (this round). Constraint: capacity for "Must" should be ≤60% of total capacity; if more, you have a strategy problem, not a prioritization problem. The "Won't" column is the most valuable — it's where commitments not to do things live.
Classify features as:
Particularly useful for AI features: most LLM "wow" features start as Delight and decay into Performance, then Basic, fast. Plan for that decay.
For each item, estimate: if we ship this one week later, what does it cost us? In dollars, lost users, missed deadline, competitor advantage. Items with steep CoD curves (or hard cliffs at a date) jump the queue.
Especially useful when arguing against a "fair queue" mentality — not all delays are equal.
decision-log skill if the prioritization decision is one the team will revisit (it always is). The framework score is the rationale.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.