scope-check
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Compare a feature or sprint with its approved scope and report scope creep and recommended cuts.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 4 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
4
Common
Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 30
If the document is not found, report the missing file and stop.
- Distinctive: line 37
Check what has actually been implemented or is in progress:
- Very specific: line 40
Read git log for commits related to this work (git log --oneline --since=[start-date])
- Common: line 41
Check for TODO/FIXME comments that indicate unfinished scope additions
- Distinctive: line 42
Check active sprint plan if the feature is mid-sprint
- Distinctive: line 113
After presenting the report, offer concrete follow-up:
- Common: line 127
Not all additions are bad — some are discovered requirements.
- Common: line 128
When recommending cuts, prioritize preserving the core player experience over nice-to-haves
- Common: line 129
Always quantify scope changes — "it feels bigger" is not actionable, "+35% items" is
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Codex-native operating rules
Keep repository source artifacts read-only during analysis and cite concrete file evidence for every finding. Ask at most one user question per turn and wait for the answer. A report, tracking record, or phase-state update may be written only after its exact changeset and paths are approved. Do not fix reviewed source artifacts unless the user gives separate explicit authorization.
Scope Check
This skill is read-only — it reports findings but writes no files.
Compares original planned scope against current state to detect, quantify, and triage scope creep.
Argument: $ARGUMENTS[0] — feature name, sprint number, or milestone name.
Phase 1: Find the Original Plan
Locate the baseline scope document for the given argument:
- Feature name → read
design/gdd/[feature].mdor matching file indesign/ - Sprint number (e.g.,
sprint-3) → readproduction/sprints/sprint-03.mdor similar - Milestone → read
production/milestones/[name].md
If the document is not found, report the missing file and stop. Do not proceed without a baseline to compare against.
Phase 2: Read the Current State
Check what has actually been implemented or is in progress:
- Scan the codebase for files related to the feature/sprint
- Read git log for commits related to this work (
git log --oneline --since=[start-date]) - Check for TODO/FIXME comments that indicate unfinished scope additions
- Check active sprint plan if the feature is mid-sprint
Phase 3: Compare Original vs Current Scope
Produce the comparison report:
## Scope Check: [Feature/Sprint Name]
Generated: [Date]
### Original Scope
[List of items from the original plan]
### Current Scope
[List of items currently implemented or in progress]
### Scope Additions (not in original plan)
| Addition | Source | When | Justified? | Effort |
|----------|--------|------|------------|--------|
| [item] | [commit/person] | [date] | [Yes/No/Unclear] | [S/M/L] |
### Scope Removals (in original but dropped)
| Removed Item | Reason | Impact |
|-------------|--------|--------|
| [item] | [why removed] | [what's affected] |
### Bloat Score
- Original items: [N]
- Current items: [N]
- Items added: [N] (+[X]%)
- Items removed: [N]
- Net scope change: [+/-N] ([X]%)
### Risk Assessment
- **Schedule Risk**: [Low/Medium/High] — [explanation]
- **Quality Risk**: [Low/Medium/High] — [explanation]
- **Integration Risk**: [Low/Medium/High] — [explanation]
### Recommendations
1. **Cut**: [Items that should be removed to stay on schedule]
2. **Defer**: [Items that can move to a future sprint/version]
3. **Keep**: [Additions that are genuinely necessary]
4. **Flag**: [Items that need a decision from producer/creative-director]Phase 4: Verdict
Assign a canonical verdict based on net scope change:
| Net Change | Verdict | Meaning |
| ≤10% | PASS | On Track — within acceptable variance |
| 10–25% | CONCERNS | Minor Creep — manageable with targeted cuts |
| 25–50% | FAIL | Significant Creep — must cut or formally extend timeline |
| >50% | FAIL | Out of Control — stop, re-plan, escalate to producer |
Output the verdict prominently:
**Scope Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]**
Net change: [+X%] — [On Track / Minor Creep / Significant Creep / Out of Control]Phase 5: Next Steps
After presenting the report, offer concrete follow-up:
- PASS → no action required. Suggest re-running before next milestone.
- CONCERNS → offer to identify the 2–3 additions with best cut ratio. Reference
$sprint-plan updateto formally re-scope. - FAIL → recommend escalating to producer. Reference
$sprint-plan updatefor re-planning or$estimateto re-baseline timeline.
Always end with:
"Run
$scope-check [name]again after cuts are made to verify the verdict improves."
Rules
- Scope creep is additions without corresponding cuts or timeline extensions
- Not all additions are bad — some are discovered requirements. But they must be acknowledged and accounted for
- When recommending cuts, prioritize preserving the core player experience over nice-to-haves
- Always quantify scope changes — "it feels bigger" is not actionable, "+35% items" is
Other versions23 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 11
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k48% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9389% same
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 7142% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1956% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1791% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 890% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 190% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 190% same
- scotidev/GameDevStudio★ 156% same
- Swih/godot-foundry★ 156% same
1 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 12
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- dvdarkin/claude-skills★ 11same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same name
- timjrobinson/Claude-Code-Construction-Manager★ 4same name
- zebbern/termstack★ 4same name
- nacif-software/skills★ 2same name
- evgenii-studitskikh/Claude-Code-SaaS-Studio★ 1same name
- aakash-dhar/claude-skills★ 0same name
- doxsir/zcode-skills★ 0same name
2 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- Codex Studio Testing Framework/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- prototypes/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tests/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- story-readinessSkill
- team-audioSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

