Guides you through four adaptive questions about product maturity, team structure, stakeholder alignment, and data availability to recommend the right framework (RICE, ICE, Value/Effort, Kano, or others)
Explains when each framework excels and when it fails, with implementation steps and scoring templates
Helps avoid \"framework whiplash\" by matching approach to context rather than applyi
Fetches prioritization-advisor from deanpeters/product-manager-skills and configures it for Cursor.
3
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ────────────────
│ · Cline · Codex · Goose · Windsurf
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ · Cursor · Aider · Continue
4
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
.cursor/skills/prioritization-advisor
Restart Cursor to activate prioritization-advisor. Access via /prioritization-advisor in your agent's command palette.
⚠
Security Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
This is not a scoring calculator—it's a decision guide that matches prioritization frameworks to your specific situation.
After collecting responses, the agent recommends a framework:
# Prioritization Framework Recommendation**Based on your context:**-**Product Stage:** [From Q1]
-**Team Context:** [From Q2]
-**Decision-Making Need:** [From Q3]
-**Data Availability:** [From Q4]
---## Recommended Framework: [Framework Name]**Why this framework fits:**- [Rationale 1 based on Q1-Q4]
- [Rationale 2]
- [Rationale 3]
**When to use it:**- [Context where this framework excels]
**When NOT to use it:**- [Limitations or contexts where it fails]
---## How to Implement### Step 1: [First implementation step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Define scoring criteria: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort"]
### Step 2: [Second step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Score each feature on 1-10 scale"]
### Step 3: [Third step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Calculate RICE score: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort"]
### Step 4: [Fourth step]- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Rank by score; review top 10 with stakeholders"]
---## Example Scoring Template[Provide a concrete example of how to use the framework]
**Example (if RICE):**| Feature | Reach (users/month) | Impact (1-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-months) | RICE Score ||---------|---------------------|--------------|----------------|------------------------|------------|| Feature A | 10,000 | 3 (massive) | 80% | 2 | 12,000 || Feature B | 5,000 | 2 (high) | 70% | 1 | 7,000 || Feature C | 2,000 | 1 (medium) | 50% | 0.5 | 2,000 |**Priority:** Feature A > Feature B > Feature C
---## Alternative Framework (Second Choice)**If the recommended framework doesn't fit, consider:** [Alternative framework name]
**Why this might work:**- [Rationale]
**Tradeoffs:**- [What you gain vs. what you lose]
---## Common Pitfalls with This Framework1.**[Pitfall 1]** — [Description and how to avoid]
2.**[Pitfall 2]** — [Description and how to avoid]
3.**[Pitfall 3]** — [Description and how to avoid]
---## Reassess When- Product stage changes (e.g., PMF → scaling)
- Team grows or reorganizes
- Stakeholder dynamics shift
- Current framework feels broken (e.g., too slow, ignoring important factors)
---**Would you like implementation templates or examples for this framework?**
Examples
Example 1: Good Framework Match (Early PMF, RICE)
Q1 Response: "Early PMF, scaling — Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand"
›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
1Install product management skill
2Start with user story generation for known feature
3Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
4Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
5Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
6Build template library for recurring PM tasks
7Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices
✓ Do
+Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
+Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
+Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
+Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
+Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
+Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
−Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
−Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
−Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
−Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
−Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path
1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
