<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. Inside a workflow run, /start-workflow → Workflow-step mode bounds this rule. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update todo tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

Quick Summary

Goal: Produce a defensible ranked ordering of 3+ planned work items using RICE, MoSCoW, or Value-Effort frameworks so the team works highest-value items first — every rank backed by a score and tech-agnostic rationale (value/effort/risk/impact).

Summary:

• 1. Track + detect/collect — track each declared step (in_progress → completed + evidence); identify file/inline input and require ≥3 items; fewer → direct discussion, NEVER force a framework.
• 2. Select + score — honor a specified framework; otherwise RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder alignment, Value-Effort 2x2 for a quick call; default RICE when unsure; apply exact criteria, formula, and scales.
• 3. Rank + report — rank by framework; emit a prioritized table with scores, tech-agnostic value/effort/risk/business-impact rationale, and Do-first/Plan-next/Defer recommendations.
• 4. Propagate + tie gate — when task files exist, record the integer priority (1–999, lower first) + priority_label on EACH task, through /task-track when the task is tracked; near-tie/disagreement → ask user question tool for /llm-council vs accept, otherwise end without prompting.

Workflow:

1. Collect Items — read files or parse inline list; require ≥3 items
2. Select Framework — use RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder alignment, or Value-Effort for a quick decision
3. Score Each Item — apply exact framework criteria and calculate scores
4. Rank & Report — emit prioritized table, rationale, and recommendations
5. Propagate Priority — if task files exist, MANDATORY record integer priority + priority_label on EACH task (tracked task: priority through /task-track)
6. Tie Gate — near-tie → ask user question tool (/llm-council vs accept); otherwise end without prompting

Key Rules:

• Require ≥3 items; fewer → discuss directly, NEVER force a framework.
• Honor a user-specified framework; otherwise default to RICE when unsure and ask when ambiguous.

AI-SDD Artifact Contract — M1–M7 are blocking: M1/M2 keep rationale tech-agnostic and source identifiers in evidence carriers; M3 uses logical IDs with abstract anchors; M4–M5 require unambiguous, rebuildable behavior; M6 makes review violations explicit; M7 requires demoable business outcomes. MUST ATTENTION READ .claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md for full mandate and carrier rules.

• Tech-agnostic rationale (M1): justify every ranking by value, effort, risk, and business impact — NOT implementation technology. Rationale prose stays tech-agnostic per spec-principles.md §3 in the reference-docs root (default docs/project-reference; a docsRoots.projectReference.path entry in docs/project-config.json overrides the path): no framework/product/language/design-pattern names; effort may cite effort points and relative complexity, never a named stack.
• Task propagation: when task files exist, record the rank as integer priority (1–999, lower comes first) and the label as priority_label on EACH task; this is mandatory, not optional.
• Work record owner: priority is a tracker-owned field (Records another skill authors). On a task with a tracking block, set it through /task-track --mode=maintain (update with priority) and edit only priority_label in the file; on an untracked task, write both keys directly. Ranking never changes status, readiness or assignee.

Apply critical/sequential thinking; every claim needs traced proof and confidence >80% to act.

Contents

• Quick Summary
• Planned Work Prioritization
• When to Use
• When NOT to Use
• Phase 0: Detect & Prepare
• Workflow
• Output Format
• Examples
• Optional Escalation: /llm-council on Ties
• Related Skills
• Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors
• Closing Reminders

Planned Work Prioritization

Use a data-driven framework → ranked list with scores + rationale.

When to Use

• Delivery planning needs ordered planned work (≥3 items)
• Stakeholder priority ranking needs justification
• Feature roadmap needs objective ordering
• Competing features or initiatives need comparison

When NOT to Use

• Fewer than 3 items → discuss directly
• Creating tasks or stories → use work-item --mode=refine or work-item --mode=story
• Full product strategy → use initiative then work-item --mode=refine

Phase 0: Detect & Prepare

• Input: ≥3 planned work items (tasks, features, user stories), from tasks/ under the team-artifacts root (default team-artifacts; a docsRoots.teamArtifacts.path entry in docs/project-config.json overrides the path), a user path, or inline descriptions.
• Record any specified framework and available quantitative, stakeholder-alignment, or quick-decision signal.
• Fewer than 3 items → ask for more or discuss directly; NEVER force a framework.

Workflow

1. Collect items

   • If a file path is provided, read items from files.
   • If an inline list is provided, parse items from the user message.
   • If fewer than 3 items, ask for more or suggest direct discussion.

2. Select framework using decision tree:

   IF quantitative data available (reach, metrics)  -> RICE
   IF stakeholder alignment needed (must/should/could) -> MoSCoW
   IF quick decision needed (2 axes only)            -> Value-Effort 2x2
   IF user specifies framework                       -> use that framework
   IF unsure                                         -> ask user, default RICE
   

3. Score each item using selected framework:

   RICE:

   Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort
   
   Reach:      Users affected per quarter (number)
   Impact:     0.25 (minimal) | 0.5 (low) | 1 (medium) | 2 (high) | 3 (massive)
   Confidence: 0.5 (low) | 0.8 (medium) | 1.0 (high)
   Effort:     Effort points (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21)
   

   MoSCoW:

   Must Have:   Critical for release, non-negotiable
   Should Have: Important but not vital, workarounds exist
   Could Have:  Desirable, include if capacity allows
   Won't Have:  Out of scope for this cycle
   

   Value-Effort 2x2:

   High Value + Low Effort  = Quick Wins    (do first)
   High Value + High Effort = Strategic     (plan carefully)
   Low Value  + Low Effort  = Fill-ins      (if time permits)
   Low Value  + High Effort = Time Sinks    (avoid)
   

4. Rank items by score (descending for RICE, category for MoSCoW, quadrant for V-E)

5. Output prioritized list with scores and rationale

6. IF task files exist -> MANDATORY priority propagation: record the resulting priority on EACH task — the rank as integer priority (1-999, lower comes first) and the label as priority_label (e.g. Must Have / Should Have / Could Have / Won't Have, or the framework's category). An untracked task takes both keys directly in its frontmatter; a task with a tracking block takes priority through /task-track --mode=maintain and only priority_label by file edit. When an existing task holds a label in priority and a number in rank, move the label to priority_label and the number to priority, and remove rank. Never leave this optional when task files exist: a task without its priority is incomplete, and downstream consumers (work-item --mode=mockup header badge, feature-presentation Scope & planned work slide) read priority FROM the task frontmatter. Update every ranked task, not just the standalone planned-work file.

Output Format

## Prioritized Planned Work

**Framework:** [RICE | MoSCoW | Value-Effort]
**Date:** [YYMMDD]
**Items scored:** [count]

### Rankings

| Rank | Item      | Score | Rationale                                           |
| ---- | --------- | ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
| 1    | Feature A | 45.0  | High reach (5000), high impact (3), high confidence |
| 2    | Feature B | 12.0  | Medium reach (2000), medium impact, low effort      |
| 3    | Feature C | 2.5   | Low reach, minimal impact, high effort              |

### Recommendations

- **Do first:** [top items]
- **Plan next:** [medium items]
- **Defer:** [low items with reasoning]

Examples

Example 1: RICE scoring of 5 features

Input: "Prioritize: SSO login, dark mode, export to PDF, email notifications, bulk import"

Output:

Rank	Feature	Reach	Impact	Conf	Effort	RICE
1	Email notifications	5000	2	0.8	1	8000
2	SSO login	2000	3	0.8	3	1600
3	Bulk import	500	2	1.0	1	1000
4	Export to PDF	1000	1	0.8	2	400
5	Dark mode	3000	0.5	0.5	2	375

Example 2: MoSCoW categorization

Input: "Categorize for Q1 release: payment gateway, admin dashboard redesign, API rate limiting, user avatars, audit logs"

Output:

• Must Have: Payment gateway (revenue-critical), API rate limiting (security)
• Should Have: Audit logs (compliance, workaround exists with manual exports)
• Could Have: Admin dashboard redesign (improves efficiency but current works)
• Won't Have: User avatars (nice-to-have, defer to Q2)

Optional Escalation: /llm-council on Ties

Gate evaluation: After producing prioritized planned work (per ## Workflow step output), inspect ranking output:

• Top-2 RICE scores within 15% of each other → gate fires
• Explicit MoSCoW tie (≥2 items in same Must/Should/Could band with material scope overlap) → gate fires
• Multi-stakeholder disagreement flagged in input → gate fires
• None of the above → gate does NOT fire; skill ends without prompting

MANDATORY ATTENTION — when the gate fires, you MUST use ask user question tool to present these options (identical preamble pattern to architecture --mode=design's ## Next Steps MANDATORY ATTENTION block):

• "Escalate to /llm-council (Recommended)" — Tie/disagreement detected. Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Council's Contrarian + Outsider lenses are well-suited to multi-task ranking ties. Cheaper alternatives: /why-review, /plan --mode=validate (use these instead if the tie is narrow but stakes are routine).
• "Skip — accept current ranking" — Acknowledge the tie; proceed with current ranking.

If gate does NOT fire, the prioritization decision stands; do NOT prompt.

Related Skills

Skill	When to use instead
initiative	Capturing product intent upfront
work-item --mode=story	Breaking tasks into user stories
work-item --mode=refine	Refining initiatives into tasks

---

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->

Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval; inside a workflow run, /start-workflow → Workflow-step mode bounds this
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Produce a defensible ranked ordering of 3+ planned work items using RICE, MoSCoW, or Value-Effort frameworks so the team works highest-value items first — every rank backed by a score and tech-agnostic rationale (value/effort/risk/impact).

Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION require 3+ items BEFORE ranking; fewer than 3 → discuss directly, NEVER force a framework — why: ranking 1-2 items adds ceremony without signal
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION select the framework by the decision tree — RICE for quantitative data, MoSCoW for stakeholder must/should/could alignment, Value-Effort 2x2 for a quick call; default RICE when unsure, ask the user when ambiguous — why: matching framework to the decision type is what makes the ranking defensible
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION emit the prioritized table (scores + rationale) AND Do-first/Plan-next/Defer recommendations — NEVER stop at raw scores — why: the consumable output is the ranked table plus an action call, not a number column
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep every rationale tech-agnostic per M1 — justify by value/effort/risk/business impact, NEVER by named stack/framework/product/language/design-pattern; effort may cite effort points + relative complexity only — why: spec-principles §3 BLOCKING, a tech-named rationale leaks implementation into a priority call
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score with the EXACT framework formula (RICE = Reach×Impact×Confidence ÷ Effort, fixed Impact/Confidence scales, Effort in effort points), then rank descending (RICE) / by band (MoSCoW) / by quadrant (V-E) — NEVER invent ad-hoc scores — why: a defensible rank needs a reproducible number
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION on a near-tie (top-2 RICE within 15%, same-band MoSCoW overlap, flagged stakeholder disagreement) the gate FIRES — use ask user question tool to offer /llm-council escalation vs. accepting the ranking; if the gate does NOT fire, end WITHOUT prompting — why: tie-breaking is a judgment call the user owns, but a clear winner needs no interruption
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting; mark one in_progress, completed immediately after evidence
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase/artifacts for 3+ similar patterns before creating new structure; evaluate pattern FIT (same constraints/scope) before copying a nearby example — why: closest example ≠ matching preconditions
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend); NEVER present a guess as fact
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION when task files exist, propagating the ranking onto EACH task (integer priority 1-999 + priority_label; on a tracked task priority goes through /task-track) is MANDATORY, not optional — do it after ranking; grep downstream consumers before changing any priority field — why: downstream consumers (work-item --mode=mockup header, feature-presentation Scope & planned work slide) read priority from task frontmatter, and stale/absent priority refs cascade silently
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Only 2 items, just rank them"	Below the 3-item floor → discuss directly; a framework adds ceremony, not signal
"I'll cite the framework in the rationale"	Tech-agnostic per M1 — justify by value/effort/risk only, never by named stack
"Scores are close enough, I'll pick"	Near-tie fires the gate → ask user question tool for /llm-council, never silently break
"RICE feels right, skip the formula"	Apply the EXACT formula with fixed scales — a defensible rank needs a number
"The planned-work file has the ranking, tasks don't need it"	When task files exist, priority write-back to each task frontmatter is MANDATORY — mockup + presentation read priority from the task, not the planned work
"Already know the patterns"	Show file:line evidence — no proof = no search
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. This prevents context loss from long files. Keep task depth proportional to the work.