Rank work items by impact and urgency using a framework — not gut feeling.
HARD-GATE
- Understand each item's impact and effort before scoring.
- Provide criteria for each dimension.
- Force relative ordering; avoid marking everything "high priority".
- Every ranking decision needs a stated reason.
Core Process
- Receive ticket/feature list.
- Detect or choose framework (RICE, MoSCoW, value-vs-effort, WSJF).
- Score each item using the framework's dimensions (see Inline Scoring Criteria).
- Order by score; break ties by strategic alignment or dependencies.
- Flag items needing clarification or with dependency constraints.
- Output ordered backlog.
Inline Scoring Criteria
RICE
Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort (higher = higher priority). Dimensions: Reach (#users/quarter), Impact (0.25–3), Confidence (50/80/100%), Effort (person-weeks).
MoSCoW
- Must, Should, Could, Won't.
Value-vs-Effort
2×2 matrix: Quick wins (high value/low effort) → do first.
WSJF
(User value + Time criticality + Risk reduction) ÷ Job size (each 1–10).
Output
- Framework used and why.
- Ordered table: Rank, Item, Score, Rationale.
- Framework breakdown (per-item dimensions) for scored frameworks.
- Flagged items and notes.
Integration
- plan-tickets: prioritize tickets after drafting
- plan-sprint: use ordered backlog to select sprint candidates
- estimate-tasks: estimates feed effort-based frameworks