Purpose
Turn an unranked list of growth initiatives into a defensible, weighted priority order — scoring each on impact, feasibility, time-to-value, and strategic fit — and produce a tiered growth agenda that tells leadership exactly what to fund now, what to sequence next, and what to kill. Solves the recurring problem of prioritization by loudest voice, pet project, or gut feel.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Prioritize or rank a set of growth initiatives, bets, or opportunities
- Decide which growth projects to fund this quarter or year given limited resources
- Build a growth agenda or roadmap from a backlog of ideas
- Resolve internal disagreement about what to work on next
- Score initiatives against strategic goals or a consistent framework
- Justify to a board or exec team why certain bets were chosen over others
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Initiative list: The candidate growth opportunities (name + 1–2 sentence description each; 5–20 ideal)
- Strategic goals: The 2–4 company objectives these initiatives should serve (e.g., "reach $50M ARR," "expand into mid-market," "reduce churn below 5%")
- Time horizon: The planning window (next quarter / next year / 3-year)
- Resource constraints: Team capacity, budget ceiling, or headcount available for growth work
- Current baseline: Rough current metrics the initiatives would move (revenue, CAC, retention, market share)
- Criteria weighting preference: Whether to weight for near-term revenue, strategic positioning, or balanced (optional)
- Non-negotiables: Any initiatives that are already committed, mandated, or off-limits
If weighting preference is missing, default to a balanced model (Impact 35 / Feasibility 25 / Time-to-Value 20 / Strategic Fit 20) and note the assumption.
Instructions
Step 1: Normalize the Initiative List
Restate each initiative in a consistent one-line format: [Initiative name] — [what it does] → [growth lever it pulls]. Group any duplicates or near-identical ideas and flag them. Classify each initiative by growth lever: Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Expansion/Monetization, or New Market/Product. This exposes portfolio concentration before scoring.
Step 2: Score Each Initiative Across Four Criteria (1–5 scale)
Score every initiative on each dimension. Use whole numbers 1–5. State a one-line justification per score — not a bare number.
Impact Potential (default weight 35%) Magnitude of effect on the stated strategic goals if it succeeds.
- 5 = Could move a primary goal metric materially (e.g., >15% of the target)
- 3 = Meaningful but secondary contribution
- 1 = Marginal or hard-to-attribute impact
- Anchor to the baseline metrics provided — reference the actual number the initiative would move
Feasibility (default weight 25%) Likelihood of successful execution given team, budget, dependencies, and risk.
- 5 = Team has the skills, budget fits, few dependencies, low execution risk
- 3 = Achievable but requires new capability, vendor, or cross-team coordination
- 1 = Major unknowns, missing capability, or heavy dependency chain
- Penalize initiatives that require capabilities the team doesn't have and can't quickly acquire
Time-to-Value (default weight 20%) Speed to first measurable result.
- 5 = Value visible within the first quarter of the horizon
- 3 = Value in the middle third of the horizon
- 1 = Value only near or beyond the end of the horizon
- Distinguish time-to-launch from time-to-value — a fast launch with slow payback scores lower
Strategic Fit (default weight 20%) Alignment with stated strategy, defensibility, and compounding value.
- 5 = Directly advances strategy and builds a durable advantage or platform for future bets
- 3 = Aligned but one-off, non-compounding
- 1 = Off-strategy, distracting, or creates future constraints
- Reward initiatives that make future initiatives easier (platform effects)
Step 3: Calculate Weighted Priority Scores
For each initiative, compute: Weighted Score = (Impact × w1) + (Feasibility × w2) + (Time-to-Value × w3) + (Strategic Fit × w4), using the chosen weights normalized to sum to 1.0. Express the final score on a 0–5 scale to one decimal. Rank all initiatives high to low.
Step 4: Apply Judgment Overlays
Adjust the pure ranking for real-world factors and state each adjustment explicitly:
- Quick-win flag: High feasibility + fast time-to-value + moderate impact → flag as momentum-builder even if not top-ranked
- Big-bet flag: High impact + high strategic fit but lower feasibility → flag as a bet requiring de-risking before funding
- Dependency chains: If Initiative B requires Initiative A, note that A must precede B regardless of B's score
- Portfolio balance: If the top tier concentrates in one growth lever, note the concentration risk
Step 5: Assign Tiers and Build the Agenda
Sort ranked initiatives into three tiers:
- Tier 1 — Fund Now: Top priorities that fit within the stated resource constraints
- Tier 2 — Next / Sequence: Strong initiatives blocked only by capacity, dependency, or de-risking
- Tier 3 — Park or Kill: Low weighted scores or off-strategy — recommend park (revisit trigger) or kill (drop)
For every Tier 3 item, state explicitly whether to park (with a revisit condition) or kill (with the reason).
Step 6: Resourcing and Trade-off Summary
State what Tier 1 consumes against the resource constraint, and name the specific initiatives that got displaced to make room. Make the trade-off visible — prioritization is only credible when the cost of choosing is shown.
Output Format
- Structure: Normalized list → scoring rationale → ranked priority table → tiered agenda → resourcing trade-off summary → final recommendation
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words
- Format: Prose for framing; a scored ranking table (Initiative | Lever | Impact | Feasibility | Time-to-Value | Strategic Fit | Weighted Score | Rank); tiered lists with rationale
- Sections: Portfolio Overview → Scoring Rationale → Priority Ranking Table → Tier 1 Fund Now → Tier 2 Next → Tier 3 Park/Kill → Resourcing Trade-offs → Recommendation
- Tone: Chief growth officer to executive team — decisive, quantitative, willing to make explicit trade-offs and name what gets cut
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every initiative has all four dimension scores plus a one-line justification per score
- [ ] Weighted scores are calculated with weights that sum to 1.0, and the math is consistent with the displayed scores
- [ ] The ranking table includes every initiative from the input — none dropped silently
- [ ] Each initiative is classified by growth lever, and portfolio concentration is flagged if present
- [ ] Every Tier 3 item is labeled park (with revisit trigger) or kill (with reason)
- [ ] The resourcing summary names specific displaced initiatives — the trade-off is explicit, not hidden
Notes
- Scores are directional inputs to a decision, not a formula that decides for the team — the judgment overlays in Step 4 are where experience overrides math
- The most common failure is a Tier 1 that quietly exceeds capacity; always reconcile the top tier against the stated constraint
- Watch for a top tier that is all one growth lever — a balanced agenda usually pairs one big bet with one or two quick wins
- If the initiative list is thin or vague, ask one clarifying question: "Which single metric would make this year a clear success?" — then weight Impact against that metric
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