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.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use rice-impact-matrix to prioritize [initiatives with reach and effort estimates] against [named OKRs] for [planning period], delivering a scored Now/Next/Later/Drop matrix with assumptions, confidence flags, and flagged RICE-versus-alignment conflicts.
Required inputs
[initiatives with reach and effort estimates]
[named OKRs]
[planning period]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: rice-impact-matrixdescription: "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
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
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):
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]
Deeper Materials
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
references/strategic-weighting.md — Blending RICE with Strategic Fit — Without Cooking the Books. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.
templates/matrix-worksheet.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.
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
Example Trigger Phrases
"Prioritise features."
"Build a priority matrix."
"Decide what to build next with multiple competing initiatives."
rice-impact-matrix by mohitagw15856 · The Skill Leaderboard