Task Prioritization System

Goal

Deliver a clear, criteria-driven ranking of the user’s backlog tasks, complete with scoring, rationale for any adjustments, a review cadence, and documented lessons learned for future improvements.

Inputs to gather

• Task backlog (the full list of tasks that need prioritizing).
• Preferred evaluation criteria, if any (so scoring aligns with what matters most).
• Desired weighting or scoring scale, if any (to reflect relative importance of criteria).
• External factors or strategic constraints that could override pure score order (to permit informed adjustments).
• Preferred review frequency (to set up an ongoing reassessment cadence).

Before doing any work, ask the user for these inputs in ONE message. Skip anything they already provided. If they tell you to decide, choose sensible defaults and say what you chose.

Workflow

1. Confirm the task backlog received from the user; note any clarifying questions if the list seems incomplete or ambiguous.
2. Propose at least three evaluation criteria—impact, effort, and urgency as defaults—unless the user supplied their own. Secure user agreement.
3. Establish a scoring system (default 1–5 scale) for each agreed criterion and, if weights are desired, assign default equal weights unless the user instructs otherwise. Share this system with the user for confirmation.
4. Apply the scoring system to every task in the backlog, producing a criterion-by-criterion score table.
5. Compute each task’s total score (use weighted average if weights exist; otherwise simple average).
6. Sort tasks from highest to lowest total score and present the initial prioritized list with all scores visible.
7. Ask the user to review external factors or strategic considerations that might change ordering; document any adjustments made and the rationale.
8. Work with the user to set a regular backlog review cadence (default weekly). Record the agreed frequency and outline what will be revisited each cycle.
9. Compile a summary report capturing:
   • Final prioritized list with individual and total scores.
   • Scoring system and criteria definitions.
   • Adjustments made and why.
   • Agreed review cadence.
   • Lessons learned and recommendations for improving future prioritizations.
10. Deliver the report to the user. Offer to schedule the first review checkpoint.

Output

A concise report (can be pasted into a document or spreadsheet) containing:

1. Table of tasks with criterion scores, total score, and final rank.
2. Description of the scoring framework and any weights.
3. Narrative section explaining adjustments and external factors.
4. Stated review frequency and next scheduled review date.
5. Bullet-point lessons learned and improvement suggestions.