Add RICE Framework Feature Prioritization prompt for PMs

[abhishekk2305]

Added a new prompt that helps PMs prioritize features using RICE scoring. Tested with GPT

[abhishekk2305]

Hi @deanpeters, just checking if this RICE framework prompt addition aligns with the repo goals. Happy to adjust based on feedback 🙌.

[deanpeters]

Hi @abhishekk2305,

Thanks for contributing to the product-manager-prompts repository! Your RICE framework prompt addresses an important prioritization challenge that many PMs face. I'd love to work with you to strengthen this submission before it can be merged.

Here are the key areas we can improve together:

Missing Comment-Driven Explainability

Add HTML comment blocks that explain the methodology and reasoning:

<!-- 
## Description:
RICE prioritization framework for systematic feature ranking with evidence-based scoring

## Usage Note:
Gather user research, usage data, and technical estimates before starting. Works best for comparing 5-15 similar features.

## Instructions:
Guide users through reasoned analysis of each RICE component, not just numerical scoring

## Attribution:
Sean McBride at Intercom - original RICE framework development
-->

Insufficient Context in Example Input

Current example: Just lists "Google SSO login, Team analytics dashboard, Slack integration"

Better approach: Provide rich context that helps the AI assistant understand:

• User research findings and pain points
• Business objectives and success metrics
• Technical constraints and dependencies
• Stakeholder requirements and timelines
• Market competitive factors

The AI needs context to provide meaningful analysis, not just raw feature names.

Enhanced RICE Component Instructions

Each element needs explicit reasoning guidance:

• Reach: Analyze user segments, adoption patterns, and usage data to estimate how many users will encounter this feature
• Impact: Evaluate user satisfaction metrics, workflow efficiency gains, and business value when users do encounter it
• Confidence: Assess data quality, research depth, and assumption validity for your Reach and Impact estimates
• Effort: Consider technical complexity, dependencies, testing, design, and rollout requirements - not just development time

Problematic Framing in "Why This Prompt is Useful"

The current explanation ("Prioritization often gets emotional or political") doesn't help the AI assistant provide better output. If stakeholder alignment is a concern, the prompt should include:

• Communication frameworks for presenting RICE results
• Stakeholder buy-in strategies
• Ways to address concerns about scoring methodology
• Social messaging that builds consensus around decisions

Suggestions for Your Revision:

1. Add comment-driven explainability explaining framework rationale and when to use RICE vs other methods
2. Enhance example input with rich business context, not just feature names
3. Provide explicit reasoning instructions for each RICE component
4. Include stakeholder communication guidance if alignment is a key challenge
5. Test across AI platforms (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini)

For detailed submission guidelines, see our SUBMISSIONS-GUIDE.md.

This isn't a rejection - it's an invitation to collaborate! Would you be interested in working together on a revised version that provides the reasoning framework and context the AI needs to be truly helpful with both the tactical scoring AND the strategic thinking behind prioritization decisions?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

[abhishekk2305]

Thanks so much for the detailed feedback, Dean 🙌 It was really insightful. I’ve revised the RICE Framework prompt to incorporate your suggestions:

• Added comment-driven explainability (HTML blocks) to clarify methodology, usage notes, and attribution.

• Enhanced the example input with richer business context (user pain points, success metrics, dependencies).

• Expanded explicit reasoning instructions for each RICE component (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort).

• Strengthened the ‘Why this prompt is useful’ section to highlight stakeholder alignment and communication value.

The updated version is now more transparent, structured, and collaborative for PMs and their teams. Looking forward to your thoughts 🚀

[deanpeters]

Hi @abhishekk2305,

First — sincere apologies for leaving this sitting for so long. That's on us, not you, and we appreciate your patience.

The revision is a real improvement. The comment block, richer example input, and per-component reasoning guidance all land well. A few structural patterns to align before we can merge:

1. No emojis — ASCII only
Replace all emoji in headers and the title with plain text. ASCII-only is a hard requirement across all prompts.

2. Required Context Keys + Missing Context Rule
Replace the open-ended "AI will ask follow-up questions" with our standard pattern: list exactly what context is needed, cap clarifying questions at 3, one at a time, then proceed with labeled assumptions.

3. Pedagogic Notes in the comment block
Add a short section explaining what strategic thinking skills this prompt builds. See jobs-to-be-done.md or pestel-analysis-prompt-template.md for examples.

4. Assumptions to Validate
Add this section to the output template after the ranked table. Every prompt in the repo closes the artifact with explicit assumptions to test.

5. Final Step / next-options block
Replace "Why This Prompt is Useful" with our standard closing: exactly 4 numbered next steps, recommended option first, with a 1, 2, 3, 4 reply prompt.

6. File naming
feature_prioritization_rice.md → feature-prioritization-rice.md (hyphens, not underscores).

7. Sticky-note rule
Add the 4–8 word bullet constraint to the output format instructions.

See jobs-to-be-done.md or pestel-analysis-prompt-template.md as reference for all of the above. You're close — this is alignment work, not a rethink.

[deanpeters]

One more note — while reviewing your PR we realized several of the patterns we asked you to follow weren't actually documented in the guide. That's on us. We've just updated SUBMISSIONS-GUIDE.md (commit 7bfe66f) to explicitly cover:

• Required Context Keys and Missing Context Rule patterns
• Pedagogic Notes as a required comment block field
• The Final Step / 4-options closing block (with a code example)
• Assumptions to Validate as a required output section
• The Sticky-Note Rule (4–8 word bullets, ASCII only)
• Emojis in prompts as a common mistake to avoid

Sorry you were working from an incomplete spec. The guide should give you a clear target now.