Purpose
Convert a messy list of candidate technologies into a defensible ranked shortlist by scoring each against weighted criteria and surfacing the rationale behind every score. Replaces gut-feel innovation decisions and HiPPO-driven roadmaps with a transparent, repeatable framework leadership can challenge and defend.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Decide which emerging technologies to pursue, pilot, or shelve this planning cycle
- Rank or prioritize a backlog of innovation bets or tech experiments
- Build the technology layer of a digital transformation roadmap
- Justify a technology investment decision to a board, ExCo, or investment committee
- Compare two or more competing technologies for a single budget line
- Re-evaluate an existing technology portfolio against shifting strategic priorities
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Candidate technologies: The list to score (3–15 items; name + 1-sentence description each)
- Strategic objectives: The 2–4 business goals these technologies are meant to advance
- Time horizon: When value is expected (e.g., this fiscal year / 2-year / 3–5 year bet)
- Constraints: Budget ceiling, headcount, regulatory limits, or platform commitments
- Risk appetite: Conservative / Balanced / Aggressive — how much technical and adoption risk is acceptable
- Criteria weighting (optional): Custom weights if the default 5-criteria split should change
- Internal capability snapshot (optional): Existing skills, data, infrastructure, vendor relationships
If weighting is not provided, default to: Strategic Fit 30%, Competitive Differentiation 20%, Time-to-Value 20%, Implementation Complexity 15%, Risk 15%. State the weights used.
Instructions
Step 1: Confirm the Scoring Frame
Restate the strategic objectives, time horizon, risk appetite, and the weights being applied (default or custom). Normalize the weights to sum to 100%. This frame governs every score — if objectives are vague, infer the most defensible reading and flag the assumption.
Step 2: Score Each Technology Against the Five Criteria
Score each candidate 1–10 on each criterion. Use the anchored definitions below — never score without explicit reasoning tied to the specific technology and this organization's context.
Criterion 1 — Strategic Fit (default weight 30%) How directly the technology advances the stated objectives.
- 9–10: Directly enables a top objective; without it a priority goal stalls
- 5–6: Supports an objective indirectly or enables a secondary goal
- 1–2: Interesting but orthogonal to current strategy
Criterion 2 — Competitive Differentiation (default weight 20%) Whether adoption creates advantage or merely keeps pace.
- 9–10: Creates a durable moat or first-mover position competitors can't quickly copy
- 5–6: Table-stakes — needed to stay even, no edge gained
- 1–2: Commoditized; everyone has it or soon will
Criterion 3 — Time-to-Value (default weight 20%) Speed to a measurable business outcome. Score against the stated time horizon.
- 9–10: Demonstrable value within one or two quarters
- 5–6: Value in 12–18 months with sustained investment
- 1–2: Multi-year payoff or value contingent on unproven ecosystem maturity
Criterion 4 — Implementation Complexity (default weight 15%, scored inversely) How hard it is to deploy given current capability. Higher score = lower complexity.
- 9–10: Slots into existing stack and skills; low integration burden
- 5–6: Requires new skills, moderate integration, or a vendor dependency
- 1–2: Demands new infrastructure, scarce talent, or deep re-architecture
Criterion 5 — Risk (default weight 15%, scored inversely) Technical, vendor, adoption, regulatory, and reputational exposure. Higher score = lower risk. Calibrate the threshold against stated risk appetite.
- 9–10: Mature, multiple vendors, clear regulatory standing, easy to reverse
- 5–6: Some maturity gaps or vendor lock-in; manageable mitigation exists
- 1–2: Immature/unproven, single point of failure, regulatory ambiguity, or hard to unwind
For each criterion score, write one sentence of rationale specific to that technology — not the generic anchor text.
Step 3: Calculate the Weighted Score
For each technology: weighted score = Σ (criterion score × criterion weight). Round to one decimal. This is the ranking number.
Step 4: Rank and Assign a Decision Band
Sort technologies by weighted score, highest first. Assign each a decision:
- Pursue — fund and resource now (typically top tier by score and strategic fit)
- Pilot — fund a time-boxed proof of value before committing
- Park — log and re-evaluate next cycle; document the specific condition that would change the call Bands are guided by score but adjusted for strategic fit and constraints — explain any case where a lower score is pursued over a higher one (or vice versa).
Step 5: Write the Per-Technology Rationale
For each technology, a 2–3 sentence narrative covering: its highest-scoring driver, its biggest drag on the score, and the single most important watch-item or condition for the decision band assigned.
Step 6: Surface Cross-Cutting Insights
Three to five observations across the slate: clustering (e.g., several bets depend on the same unproven capability), sequencing dependencies, portfolio balance (too many long-horizon bets vs. quick wins), and the one technology the data ranks low but that warrants a contrarian second look.
Output Format
- Structure: Scoring frame statement → weighted scoring table → ranked shortlist with decision bands → per-technology rationale → cross-cutting insights
- Length: 900–1,400 words depending on number of candidates
- Format: A scoring table (rows = technologies, columns = the 5 criteria scores, weighted total, rank, decision) followed by structured prose for rationale and insights
- Sections: Scoring Frame → Weighted Scoring Table → Ranked Shortlist → Per-Technology Rationale → Cross-Cutting Insights
- Tone: Strategy director — analytical, decisive, willing to make a call. No hedging into "it depends."
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every candidate technology appears in the table and the ranked list
- [ ] All five criteria are scored 1–10 for every technology with technology-specific rationale — not anchor boilerplate
- [ ] Weights are stated, normalized to 100%, and applied consistently in the math
- [ ] Weighted totals are calculated correctly and the ranking reflects them
- [ ] Complexity and Risk are scored inversely (higher score = better) consistently throughout
- [ ] Every technology has a Pursue / Pilot / Park decision, and any score-versus-decision override is explained
Notes
- Implementation Complexity and Risk are scored inversely so that a single high weighted total always means "more attractive" — this keeps the ranking intuitive and prevents sign errors.
- The most valuable output is often the contrarian flag in cross-cutting insights: the low-scoring bet with asymmetric upside that a pure score would bury.
- Re-run the scorer with an "Aggressive" risk appetite to pressure-test how much the ranking is being driven by risk tolerance versus strategic fit — if the top three don't change, the shortlist is robust.
- Encourage the user to record the weights and assumptions; the framework's value compounds when the same lens is reapplied each planning cycle.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills