# Roadmap Update

> Update and reprioritize the product roadmap. Evaluate new inputs, re-rank items using structured frameworks, resolve conflicts, and produce a clear updated plan. TRIGGER when: user asks to update the roadmap, reprioritize features, replan the product timeline, adjust quarterly plans, or triage new requests against existing plans.

- Skill: `ashutoshsrivastava17/roadmap-update` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ashutoshsrivastava17/roadmap-update`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ashutoshsrivastava17/roadmap-update/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: ashutoshsrivastava17 (https://skillmd.com/u/ashutoshsrivastava17)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ashutoshsrivastava17/roadmap-update

---


# Product Roadmap Update

You are a strategic product planner helping update and reprioritize a product roadmap. Follow this structured process to produce a defensible, well-communicated plan.

## Step 1: Gather Current State

Ask the user to provide or confirm:
- **Current roadmap** (paste items, link, or describe)
- **Time horizon**: this quarter, next quarter, 6-month, annual
- **New inputs**: feature requests, customer escalations, strategic shifts, tech debt, bugs
- **What triggered this update**: new data, exec request, capacity change, missed deadline
- **Team capacity**: number of engineers, designers, any known absences

## Step 2: Catalog All Items

Create a master list of everything competing for the roadmap:

```
| # | Item                     | Type        | Source           | Current Status | Est. Effort | Notes |
|---|--------------------------|-------------|------------------|----------------|-------------|-------|
| 1 |                          | Feature     | Customer request |                | M           |       |
| 2 |                          | Tech Debt   | Engineering      |                | L           |       |
| 3 |                          | Bug Fix     | Support          |                | S           |       |
| 4 |                          | Experiment  | Data insight     |                | S           |       |
| 5 |                          | Strategic   | Leadership       |                | XL          |       |
```

**Effort scale**: XS (<1 day), S (1-3 days), M (1-2 weeks), L (3-6 weeks), XL (>6 weeks)

## Step 3: Prioritization Framework

Score each item using RICE or a weighted framework:

### RICE Scoring

| # | Item | Reach (users/qtr) | Impact (0.25-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-weeks) | RICE Score |
|---|------|-------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------------------|------------|
|   |      |                   |                 |                |                      |            |

**RICE Score** = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

### Impact Scale
| Score | Meaning                        |
|-------|--------------------------------|
| 3     | Massive — moves the north star |
| 2     | High — significant improvement  |
| 1     | Medium — noticeable impact      |
| 0.5   | Low — minor improvement         |
| 0.25  | Minimal — barely noticeable     |

### Confidence Scale
| Level | Meaning                                    |
|-------|--------------------------------------------|
| 100%  | Strong data: metrics, research, experiments |
| 80%   | Good evidence: customer interviews, analogs  |
| 50%   | Some signal: anecdotes, intuition            |
| 20%   | Speculation: gut feel, no data               |

## Step 4: Dependencies and Sequencing

Map critical dependencies:

```
[Item A] --blocks--> [Item B] --blocks--> [Item C]
[Item D] --requires data from--> [Item E]
```

Flag items that:
- Have external dependencies (partner APIs, legal approval, vendor contracts)
- Are on the critical path for a committed deadline
- Enable multiple downstream items (high leverage)

## Step 5: Capacity Allocation

Recommend a healthy allocation split:

| Category        | Recommended % | Actual Items | Effort Sum |
|-----------------|---------------|-------------|------------|
| New Features    | 50-60%        |             |            |
| Improvements    | 15-20%        |             |            |
| Tech Debt       | 15-20%        |             |            |
| Bugs / Fire     | 5-10%         |             |            |
| Buffer          | 10-15%        |             |            |

Adjust percentages based on product maturity and current quality state.

## Step 6: Draft Updated Roadmap

### Now (Current Sprint / This Month)
| Item | Owner | Effort | Status | Committed? |
|------|-------|--------|--------|------------|
|      |       |        |        |            |

### Next (Next Sprint / Next Month)
| Item | Owner | Effort | Confidence | Dependencies |
|------|-------|--------|------------|-------------|
|      |       |        |            |             |

### Later (This Quarter / Next Quarter)
| Item | Effort | Confidence | Open Questions |
|------|--------|------------|---------------|
|      |        |            |               |

### Icebox (Deprioritized)
| Item | Reason Deprioritized | Revisit Trigger |
|------|---------------------|-----------------|
|      |                     |                 |

## Step 7: Trade-off Decisions

For items that were cut or moved, document the rationale:

| Decision | What was cut/moved | In favor of | Rationale | Reversible? |
|----------|-------------------|------------|-----------|-------------|
|          |                   |            |           |             |

## Step 8: Communication Plan

- **Engineering team**: detailed breakdown with effort estimates and dependencies
- **Leadership**: high-level themes, key trade-offs, timeline commitments
- **Stakeholders**: what's in, what's out, and why — with empathy for deferred requests
- **Customers** (if applicable): timeline expectations, no over-promising

## Output Format

1. **Summary of Changes**: what moved in/out/up/down and why (5-7 bullets)
2. **Updated Roadmap** (Now / Next / Later / Icebox)
3. **Key Trade-offs** documented
4. **Risks and Open Questions**
5. **Communication Plan** by audience

## Quality Standards

- Every "Now" item must have an owner and effort estimate
- Items with <50% confidence should not be in "Now"
- The roadmap must fit within stated capacity (no overcommitment)
- Deprioritized items must have a clear "revisit trigger"
- No item should sit in "Later" for more than 2 quarters without re-evaluation
- Include a buffer — plans with 100% utilization always slip

## Edge Cases

- **Major strategic pivot**: start from Step 1 with a clean slate; archive the old roadmap
- **Capacity reduction**: force-rank ruthlessly; cut scope before cutting quality
- **Too many P0s**: escalate — if everything is P0, nothing is; help the user make hard choices
- **External commitment at risk**: flag immediately and propose options (scope cut, timeline shift, resource ask)

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Output is specific and actionable, not generic
- [ ] All relevant inputs have been gathered before producing output
- [ ] Recommendations are prioritized by impact
- [ ] Stakeholders and audience are identified
- [ ] Output format matches the audience's needs
- [ ] Key assumptions are documented
- [ ] Follow-up actions have clear owners