mohganji/skills · Archived

priority-score

Score feature priorities using Geoff Ralston's (b*d)/c formula — Breadth, Depth, and Cost on 1-5 scales yielding a 1-100 priority score. Use when user wants to prioritize features, decide what to build next, rank a backlog, compare initiatives, or mentions "priority score".

First seen May 7, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add mohganji/skills --skill priority-score

Stronger alternatives

This repository is archived — consider an actively maintained alternative.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from mohganji/skills · top by installs.

npx skills add mohganji/skills

Browse all from mohganji/skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 4
Default branch main
Open issues 0
Status Archived

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 5,133 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 298 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 5 installs

SKILL.md

Startup Priorities

Score features with (Breadth x Depth) / Cost, scaled to 1 - 100.

Formula: score = max(1, round(4 b d / c))

Score Band Emoji Action
1 - 4 Skip Backlog or kill it
5 - 12 Low 🔵 Only if nothing better exists
13 - 24 Moderate 🟡 Schedule in a future sprint
25 - 49 High 🟠 Current or next sprint
50 - 100 Do it now 🔴 Stop what you're doing

Modes

  • Autonomous (default): Score all three variables yourself using the litmus tests below and the context available. Output the one-liner immediately. No user interaction unless you hit uncertainty (see below).
  • Collaborative: Walk through each variable with the user one at a time. Enter this mode when:

- The user explicitly asks to collaborate, discuss, or decide on the variables - You lack sufficient context to confidently answer a litmus test (e.g. no info on user base size, no way to gauge cost) - Two adjacent levels seem equally valid and the difference would change the band

When entering collaborative mode, explain which variable you're uncertain about and why, then use AskUserQuestion for that variable only. Return to autonomous for the rest.

Input spectrums

Each level has a litmus test — a yes/no question that pins the score and removes ambiguity.

Breadth (b) — reach across current users + validated TAM

Score based on current users or TAM expansion — whichever is higher. TAM claims require evidence (waitlist, inbound requests, competitor data, LOIs). "We think the market is big" without evidence stays at b=1.

b Label Current users OR TAM expansion (with evidence)
1 Niche <5%, named accounts No TAM signal
2 Narrow 5-20%, one segment A few inbound requests from non-users
3 Moderate 20-50%, multiple segments Validated demand: waitlist, competitor proof
4 Broad 50-80%, most weekly actives Large reachable TAM segment via existing channels
5 Universal >80%, all users incl. new signups Unlocks dominant share of TAM

Depth (d) — observable user behavior, not your guess

d Label Litmus test
1 Cosmetic If you shipped it silently, would anyone open a ticket or mention it? (No)
2 Convenience Do affected users have a workaround they tolerate without complaining? (Yes)
3 Meaningful Do users bring this up unprompted in feedback calls or surveys? (Yes)
4 Critical Is it a top-10 feature request? Have sales deals stalled or required workarounds because of it? (Yes)
5 Existential Have users churned explicitly citing this gap, or is a new market segment blocked without it? (Yes)

Cost (c) — scope of the engineering work

c Label Litmus test
1 Trivial Can one person ship it today — config change, copy fix, flag flip? (Yes)
2 Small One person, 1-3 days, isolated to one component, standard PR? (Yes)
3 Medium Needs a design discussion, touches 3+ files across 2+ modules, may need QA beyond unit tests? (Yes)
4 Large Requires cross-team coordination, a migration plan, or staging env testing? (Yes)
5 Massive Would you create a project plan with milestones and track it weekly? (Yes)

Workflow

Autonomous (default)

  1. Read the feature/task/goal from context.
  2. Score each variable using the litmus tests. For each, identify which litmus test applies.
  3. If confident on all three, compute and output the one-liner directly:

`` <emoji> Priority Score: <score>(<band>) - <archetype>: <brief why> ``

  1. If scoring multiple features, output a ranked list of one-liners.

Collaborative (on uncertainty or user request)

  1. Present the spectrum tables so the user sees the litmus tests.
  2. For each uncertain variable, explain the uncertainty and use AskUserQuestion.
  3. Score confident variables autonomously — only ask about the ones you can't pin.
  4. Compute and output the one-liner.

Showing your work

When outputting the one-liner, always follow it with a brief breakdown so the user can challenge the score:

<emoji> Priority Score: <score>(<band>) - <archetype>: <brief why>
    b=<b>(<label>) d=<d>(<label>) c=<c>(<label>)

Key rules

  • Early-stage caveat: pre-PMF, Depth > Breadth. 100 devoted users beat 1000 lukewarm ones. Call this out when presenting results.
  • This is a thinking tool, not a replacement for judgment.
  • When uncertain about a variable, ask — don't guess. A wrong score is worse than a slow score.

See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for archetypes, worked examples, and band analysis.