Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› rice-impact-matrix
rice-impact-matrix
GitHub结合定量RICE评分与定性战略契合度，对功能或项目进行优先级排序。通过计算综合得分并划分矩阵象限，输出包含排序建议、冲突预警及排期推荐的优先级矩阵，辅助决策资源分配。
Trigger Scenarios
需要对多个竞争项目或功能进行优先级排序
要求构建优先级矩阵
需要结合量化评分与战略匹配度做决策
决定下一步优先开发什么
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill rice-impact-matrix -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "rice-impact-matrix",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/rice-impact-matrix.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "🗺"
}
},
"description": "Scores features using both RICE and strategic alignment for nuanced prioritisation. Use when asked to prioritise features, build a priority matrix, combine quantitative scoring with strategic fit, or decide what to build next with multiple competing initiatives. Produces a scored priority matrix with RICE scores, strategic alignment ratings, quadrant placement, and sequencing recommendations."
}
RICE + Strategic Alignment Skill
Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qualitative strategic fit — because the highest RICE score isn't always the right next bet.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- List of initiatives or features to prioritise (names and brief descriptions)
- Current strategic priorities or OKRs (needed to rate strategic alignment)
- Reach estimates (users affected per quarter — even rough estimates work)
- Effort estimates (person-months — from engineering if available)
- Quarter or planning period
Two-Stage Process
Stage 1: RICE Scoring
- Reach: Users affected per quarter
- Impact: 3/2/1/0.5/0.25 scale
- Confidence: 100% / 80% / 50%
- Effort: Person-months
- RICE = (R × I × C) / E
Stage 2: Strategic Alignment Score
Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provided as input):
- Directly supports top OKR: +3
- Supports secondary OKR: +2
- Neutral: +1
- Contradicts strategic direction: -1
Final Priority Score
Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)
Validate — Flag any initiative where RICE score and strategic alignment conflict sharply (e.g., high RICE, low alignment). These require an explicit team conversation before sequencing.
Output Structure
Priority Matrix — [Quarter]
| Initiative | RICE Score | Strategic Alignment | Combined Score | Quadrant | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [score] | [score] | [combined] | [Now/Next/Later/Drop] | [action] |
Quadrant Definitions
- Now: High RICE + High Strategic Alignment → Build this quarter
- Next: High RICE + Lower Alignment → Queue for next quarter
- Later: Lower RICE + High Alignment → Revisit when capacity allows
- Drop: Low RICE + Low Alignment → Remove from backlog
Recommendations
[Top 5 initiatives with rationale for sequencing]
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring integrity | Invented or uniform component values; 100% confidence everywhere | All components estimated, but confidence levels unexamined and scales inconsistent across rows | Every component sourced or explicitly flagged; no unvalidated 100%s; 50%-confidence rows marked and scale choices (e.g. reach units) stated |
| Strategic-alignment rigour | Alignment rated on "feels strategic" with no reference to priorities | Ratings given but not tied to named OKRs; nothing scores negative | Every rating maps to a specific OKR by name; initiatives that contradict strategy actually receive −1 |
| Conflict surfacing | Combined score presented as the definitive ranking | Sharp RICE-vs-alignment divergences are visible in the table but never discussed | Every sharp divergence is flagged with an explicit conversation recommendation (owner, forum, and a scoreable alternative where one exists) |
| Quadrant decisiveness | Everything lands in "Now"; no Drops | Quadrants used, but Drop recommendations are vague ("deprioritise") and capacity is ignored | Honest distribution including specific Drop actions with re-entry conditions, and sequencing checked against actual capacity |
Quality Checks
- All RICE components have an estimate (even if low confidence — flag those)
- Strategic alignment is rated against specific OKRs, not general "feels strategic"
- Conflicts between RICE rank and strategic alignment are explicitly flagged
- "Drop" recommendations are specific — not just "low priority, deprioritise"
- Confidence levels on estimates are noted where weak (drives the 50% confidence flag)
Anti-Patterns
- Do not treat the combined score as a definitive ranking — use it to structure a conversation, not replace one
- Do not rate strategic alignment as "high" because an initiative feels important without mapping it to a specific OKR
- Do not place all initiatives in the "Now" quadrant — a matrix with no "Drop" recommendations is not credible
- Do not ignore the conflict flag when RICE rank and strategic alignment sharply diverge
- Do not accept 100% confidence on estimates that have not been validated with data
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:31
