Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.getcore.me/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Evaluate opportunities systematically using frameworks that account for impact, feasibility, confidence, and customer problems.

​
Tools Required

This skill runs using CORE memory only. No integrations required.

​
Step 1: Select the Right Framework

Choose based on your context and available data:
  • Opportunity Score: Best when you have customer satisfaction and importance data; ideal for identifying high-value customer problems
  • ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease): Quick prioritization for ideas and initiatives; works with rough estimation
  • RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort): Scaled prioritization for larger teams requiring more granularity; accounts for different user reach

​
Step 2: Gather Customer Data (for Opportunity Score)

Survey customers on two dimensions for each need or feature request:
  • Importance: How important is this to customers? (0-1 or 1-10 scale)
  • Satisfaction: How satisfied are customers with current solutions? (0-1 or 1-10 scale)
Normalize responses to 0-1 scale for consistent comparison.

​
Step 3: Calculate Scores

Apply the appropriate formula based on your chosen framework: Opportunity Score 
Opportunity Score = Importance × (1 − Satisfaction)
Highest scores indicate unmet needs with high customer importance. ICE Score 
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
Rate Impact (1-10), Confidence (0-1 or 0-100%), and Ease (1-10 where 10 is easiest). RICE Score 
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
Reach = number of customers/users, Impact = effect on each (1-3 scale), Confidence = 0-1, Effort = person-months.

​
Step 4: Visualize and Interpret Results

Plot findings on relevant matrices:
  • Opportunity Score: Create an Importance vs. Satisfaction scatter plot; prioritize high-importance, low-satisfaction quadrant
  • ICE/RICE: Create an impact-effort grid; prioritize high-impact, low-effort initiatives
  • Look for clusters and outliers; use context to adjust rankings

​
Step 5: Make Prioritized Recommendations

Rank items by score and advance the highest-scoring opportunities first. Account for:
  • Stakeholder alignment: Build support for top priorities
  • Confidence levels: High-uncertainty items may need validation before full commitment
  • Dependencies: Some items require prerequisites to complete first
  • Resource constraints: Ensure your top priorities are actually doable with available capacity

​
Output Format

Prioritization Analysis Framework Selected [Opportunity Score / ICE / RICE] Input Data [Customer research or estimation assumptions] Scoring Results Opportunity Score Approach
OpportunityImportanceSatisfactionScoreRank
[Item 1][0-1][0-1][Score][1]
[Item 2][0-1][0-1][Score][2]
[Item 3][0-1][0-1][Score][3]
ICE Approach
InitiativeImpactConfidenceEaseScoreRank
[Item 1][1-10][0-1][1-10][Score][1]
[Item 2][1-10][0-1][1-10][Score][2]
RICE Approach
InitiativeReachImpactConfidenceEffortScoreRank
[Item 1][#][1-3][0-1][months][Score][1]
Visualization [Link to scatter plot or impact-effort matrix] 🎯 Top 3 Priorities
  1. [Item with rationale]
  2. [Item with rationale]
  3. [Item with rationale]
Confidence & Risk Notes
  • [High-uncertainty items requiring validation]
  • [Dependencies to resolve]
  • [Resource constraints affecting feasibility]
Next Steps
  • Allocate team capacity to top 3 priorities
  • Define success metrics and tracking
  • Plan validation experiments if confidence is low

​
Edge Cases

  • Data quality varies: When customer data is sparse, use ICE to move forward with estimation. Plan to gather better data as you learn.
  • Different scales: Comparing initiatives measured in different units (user reach vs. platform impact) requires normalization. Document your scaling assumptions.
  • Tied scores: When initiatives score equally, use secondary factors: team alignment, strategic fit, or risk appetite to break ties.
  • Effort underestimation: Engineering effort often surprises. Build in buffer or prioritize investigations upfront to reduce estimate uncertainty.
  • Strategic override: High-scoring items may occasionally conflict with strategic priorities. Document overrides explicitly and communicate reasoning to stakeholders.