Prioritization Rigor Audit Skill

What this skill changes vs. default behavior

By default, Claude performs prioritization confidently — it fills RICE tables with invented numbers, ranks features by plausible-sounding impact, and presents the result with unearned precision. Reviewing someone else's prioritization, it tends to accept scores at face value. This audit forces four things: every score is traced to its evidence (or flagged as decoration), every ranking is traced to a strategic outcome (or flagged as unmoored), every "must-have" is challenged, and every decision is checked for an explicit, stress-tested trade-off. Findings come severity-rated with concrete fixes.

This is an evaluative skill: it auto-runs whenever a prioritized list, scoring table, backlog order, or build-next decision appears in work being reviewed or generated.

Scope discipline. When invoked directly (the user named this audit), review only this concern — don't pull in sibling audits. It runs alongside other lenses only when the pm-product-review orchestrator or a generative skill calls it under docs/orchestration-policy.md, where it sits in an artifact-specific lens — offered (when work is prioritized or roadmapped). Explicit scope always wins.

The framework — what to check and what a violation looks like

1. Evidence behind scores (the false-precision check)

A RICE/ICE score is only as good as its inputs. Reach should come from real usage data, impact from a hypothesis someone can defend, confidence from the quality of evidence — not from optimism. Scores invented to two decimal places are intuition wearing a lab coat.

Flag when: scores appear without sources; confidence is uniformly high; effort estimates lack engineering input; the precision of the output (e.g., "RICE 847.5") exceeds the precision of any input; scoring was applied after the decision to justify it.