Prioritization Formula: Make trade-offs explicit without pretending a score is judgment
Teams debate priorities using different definitions of value, effort, confidence, and urgency, then treat the loudest argument as the plan.
The useful response is not more ceremony. It is a mechanism that can make trade-offs explicit without pretending a score is judgment.
What the skill produces
The Prioritization Formula skill turns supplied context into a comparable option table with stated criteria, evidence, assumptions, scores, and a recorded decision. It should expose missing evidence instead of inventing it. The free skill packages this mechanism for explicit use. It does not fetch remote instructions, and the practitioner remains responsible for the facts and final decision.
Run the mechanism
- Define each criterion and its scale before scoring options.
- Record the evidence and assumption behind every material score.
- Use the ranking to expose trade-offs, then let the accountable owner make the decision.
The owner should review the output against the original evidence before it is used. Any unresolved assumption stays labeled, with an owner and date when it affects the decision.
Failure check
A formula creates false precision when inputs are unsupported or the score is allowed to replace judgment.
Attribution boundary
If the implementation uses an established model such as ICE, attribute that framework and explain any changes to its criteria.
Adoption test
Score one real decision independently with two reviewers. Examine material differences before agreeing on the priority and documenting the rationale.
Keep the skill only if it improves the artifact or decision against that baseline. Revise the playbook when the same failure survives more than one review cycle.
Infographic
