Best for
- Use when someone asks to prioritize, rank, sequence, or triage impediments, countermeasures, remediation items, risks, findings, gaps, action items, or backlog entries; or mentions value-stream prioritization, A3 / lean…
github/awesome-copilot/skills/impediment-prioritization/SKILL.md
Ranks any list of impediments and their countermeasures using a value-stream scoring model (ROI, Cost to Implement, Ease of Deployment, Risk Factor) and a fixed prioritization formula. Use when someone asks to prioritize, rank, sequence, or triage impediments, countermeasures, remediation items, risks, findings, gaps, action items, or backlog entries; or mentions value-stream prioritization, A3 / lean countermeasure ranking, ROI vs. effort scoring, or building a remediation / improvement backlog
Decision brief
A domain-agnostic skill for ranking impediments and their countermeasures. Works with any {impediment, countermeasure} list — GHQR findings, audit results, retro action items, risk registers, architecture review gaps, etc.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/impediment-prioritization"Inspect the Agent Skill "impediment-prioritization" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/impediment-prioritization/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
1. Ingest the impediment list. Confirm 1:1 impediment-to-countermeasure mapping; collapse duplicates. 2. Confirm the countermeasure for each impediment. Prefer documented best practice for the domain. Cite a public / authoritative link when one is available. 3. Score all four cr…
Activate when the user: - Asks to prioritize, rank, sequence, or triage impediments, gaps, risks, findings, or remediation items - Provides a list of impediments with proposed countermeasures (or asks you to propose countermeasures for a list of problems) - Asks "what should we…
Accepted input: a list of {impediment, countermeasure} pairs. Sources include (non-exhaustive):
Score each impediment's countermeasure against all four criteria. See references/scoring-rubric.md for anchoring examples at the 1 / 5 / 10 levels across multiple domains (platform engineering, security, SRE, application development, governance).
Use the formula verbatim. Do not reweight, normalize, or substitute.
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 91/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 37,126 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
A domain-agnostic skill for ranking impediments and their countermeasures. Works with any {impediment, countermeasure} list — GHQR findings, audit results, retro action items, risk registers, architecture review gaps, etc.
Activate when the user:
Accepted input: a list of {impediment, countermeasure} pairs. Sources include (non-exhaustive):
| Source | Maps to Impediment | Maps to Countermeasure |
|---|---|---|
| GHQR / health-check findings | Finding or gap (Status ≠ Expected) | Recommendation / expected value |
| Audit results | Non-conformance | Remediation action |
| Retrospective | "What went wrong" item | Agreed improvement |
| Risk register | Risk | Mitigation |
| Architecture review | Gap vs. target state | Proposed change |
| User free-form list | Problem statement | Proposed fix |
Rules:
Confidence column.Score each impediment's countermeasure against all four criteria. See references/scoring-rubric.md for anchoring examples at the 1 / 5 / 10 levels across multiple domains (platform engineering, security, SRE, application development, governance).
| Criterion | Scale | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Return on Investment (ROI) | 1 = low, 10 = high | Efficiency gain delivered by the countermeasure to this step AND to the overall value stream. Not purely financial — weight throughput, cycle-time reduction, defect removal, user / developer experience, and compliance lift. |
| Cost to Implement | 1 = inexpensive, 10 = very expensive | Human capital (salary + time of people needed) plus any purchases, licenses, or infrastructure required to implement the countermeasure. |
| Ease of Deployment | 1 = extremely hard, 10 = very easy | Remediation effort required to actually deploy the countermeasure end-to-end. Reflects technical complexity, change-management burden, and rollback risk. |
| Risk Factor | 1 = low risk, 10 = very high risk | Risk weighted on impact to the overall value stream if the countermeasure goes wrong, stalls, or is deferred. |
Every score must be accompanied by a one-line rationale. When a score is an estimate rather than drawn from explicit data, mark the rationale with (estimated).
Priority = ((ROI * (10 / Cost)) + (Ease * (10 / Risk))) / 2
1 guarantees Cost and Risk are never zero (no divide-by-zero).((10*10)+(10*10))/2 = 100((1*1)+(1*1))/2 = 1Use the formula verbatim. Do not reweight, normalize, or substitute.
[CSA Action Required] vs. [Customer Self-Service] for GHQR/PAK, or [Owner: Team X] / [Self-Service] for internal backlogs), include them on the top-ranked items. Skip if not requested.## Prioritized Impediments
**Scoring:** ROI (1 low → 10 high), Cost (1 cheap → 10 expensive), Ease (1 hard → 10 easy), Risk (1 low → 10 high).
**Formula:** `Priority = ((ROI * (10/Cost)) + (Ease * (10/Risk))) / 2`
| Rank | Impediment | Countermeasure | ROI | Cost | Ease | Risk | Priority | Rationale |
|------|------------|----------------|-----|------|------|------|----------|-----------|
| 1 | [gap] | [action + link] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n.n] | ROI: …<br>Cost: …<br>Ease: …<br>Risk: … |
### Top 3 — Act First
1. **[Impediment]** — [why it wins on the formula + optional ownership tag]
2. …
3. …
Worked example (GitHub Enterprise adoption):
| Rank | Impediment | Countermeasure | ROI | Cost | Ease | Risk | Priority | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2FA not enforced at org level | Enforce org-wide 2FA (docs) | 9 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 42.5 | ROI: removes broad credential-compromise classCost: admin toggle + member commsEase: single org setting, members re-enrollRisk: low — can stage with grace period |
| 2 | Secret scanning disabled | Enable secret scanning + push protection org-wide (docs) | 8 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 25.0 | ROI: catches leaked creds pre-mergeCost: GHAS seats if not bundled (estimated)Ease: org-level defaultRisk: push-protection may block legitimate commits; stage per repo |
| 3 | No CODEOWNERS on critical repos | Add CODEOWNERS to top-20 repos (docs) | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 15.0 | ROI: targeted review coverageCost: team time to define owners (estimated)Ease: file-level change, but requires owner buy-inRisk: review bottlenecks if owners undersized |
Worked example (generic retrospective action items):
| Rank | Impediment | Countermeasure | ROI | Cost | Ease | Risk | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Flaky test suite blocks deploys daily | Quarantine top-10 flaky tests + add retry policy | 9 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 42.5 |
| 2 | No on-call runbook for payment service | Draft runbook from last 3 incidents | 7 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 31.7 |
| 3 | Manual release notes take 2h/release | Generate from Conventional Commits via CI | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 15.8 |
(estimated).The ranked table produced by this skill is the deliverable. Wire it into whatever downstream artifact your workflow needs (Jira epic, ADR, OKR backlog, incident review, health check report, etc.). This skill does not depend on any sibling skills or external templates.
Alternatives
github/awesome-copilot
Use this skill whenever the user mentions IP geolocation feeds, RFC 8805, geofeeds, or wants help creating, tuning, validating, or publishing a self-published IP geolocation feed in CSV format. Intended user audience is a network operator, ISP, mobile carrier, cloud provider, hosting company, IXP, or satellite provider asking about IP geolocation accuracy, or geofeed authoring best practices. Helps create, refine, and improve CSV-format IP geolocation feeds with opinionated recommendations beyon
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when working with Laravel queues in production — Horizon dashboard, worker supervision, job metrics, balancing strategies — even when the user just says 'my jobs are piling up'.
affaan-m/ECC
Production machine-learning engineering workflow for data contracts, reproducible training, model evaluation, deployment, monitoring, and rollback. Use when building, reviewing, or hardening ML systems beyond one-off notebooks.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Build, inspect, test, and analyze bounded process-based discrete-event simulations with SimPy, including events, resources, interrupts, monitoring, replications, warm-up, and reproducible output analysis.