SKILL.md
Opportunity Scoring (Pragmatic Framework: Focus / Business)
Evaluate candidate opportunities objectively so a decision rests on evidence, not the loudest voice. Score each opportunity on four attributes using a 1-to-5 scale where 1 = Least Favorable and 5 = Most Favorable. See ../pm-copilot/references/framework.md.
The four attributes (1 = least favorable, 5 = most favorable)
| Attribute | What it measures | 1 (least) → 5 (most) |
|---|---|---|
| Distinctive Competencies | How much it relies on abilities we already have (valued, different, provable) | 1 = requires building a new competency → 5 = directly uses existing strong competencies |
| Competitive Landscape | Size/strength of alternatives | 1 = highly competitive (rival has pricing power/brand equity) → 5 = low competition (we can freeze out the market) |
| Investment Level | Resources (people, material, facilities) required | 1 = very high (ground-up build) → 5 = very low (re-use existing assets) |
| Impact to Buyers/Users | Consequences for current & potential customers | 1 = negative outweighs positive → 5 = significant positive impact / high ROI for buyer |
Total = sum of the four scores (4–20). Rank opportunities by total, but read the per-attribute scores too — a low Investment + high Impact "no brainer" may beat a higher total that depends on a competency you don't have.
Method
- List the candidate opportunities (ideally ones already validated as urgent, pervasive
and willing-to-pay — see pm-market-problems).
- Score each attribute 1–5 and write the rationale (the evidence) for each score.
- Sum, rank, and discuss — especially where scores are low on Distinctive Competencies
(can we really win?) or Investment (can we afford it?).
Interview the user for inputs (batch questions)
- What are the opportunities to compare? (Name each + the market problem it solves.)
- For each: do we already have the competencies to deliver it, or must we build them?
- How competitive is the space (who else, how entrenched)?
- Rough investment — reuse existing assets, or ground-up?
- Expected impact/ROI for buyers and users (and any downside)?
Artifact template
# Opportunity Scorecard — <product/BU>
**Company:** <company> · **Feature / Product:** <feature / product name>
**Author:** <author> · **Date created:** <date> · **Version:** 1.0
**Scale:** 1 = Least Favorable → 5 = Most Favorable
| Opportunity | Distinctive Competencies | Competitive Landscape | Investment Level | Impact to Buyers/Users | Total | Rank |
| :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| <Opportunity A> | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 2 |
| <Opportunity B> | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 1 |
## Rationale (evidence behind each score)
### <Opportunity A>
- **Distinctive Competencies (4):** <why>
- **Competitive Landscape (3):** <why>
- **Investment Level (2):** <why>
- **Impact to Buyers/Users (5):** <why>
## Recommendation
<Which opportunity(ies) to pursue and why — reference the scores and the market evidence.>Deliver the artifact
Follow ../pm-copilot/references/artifact-output.md: confirm inputs, ask Markdown or .docx, write the .md, convert via your environment's native document-creation capability on request. Next stage: build the full business case for the winner with pm-product-canvas.