agentleFS
Sign inStart free
mcabreradevmcabreradev/hermes-sdd-agency/skills/plan-scope-review/SKILL.md

plan-scope-review

Skill1 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub

Choose a scope mode for a plan before planning: expand, hold, or strip.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before the plan is written, decide deliberately what scope the work should have.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Run it in the idea/planning stage.

    line 13

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md
<!-- hermes-add-skill: scope-mode concept adapted from gstack /plan-ceo-review (garrytan/gstack, MIT). -->

Plan scope review

Before the plan is written, decide deliberately what scope the work should have. A plan written without this choice drifts to whatever was easiest to write; a scope review chooses the ambition up front.

Run it in the idea/planning stage. Pick ONE mode, state it, and plan accordingly.

The four scope modes

ModeWhat it doesUse when
SCOPE EXPANSIONDream big: rethink the problem, find the 10x version, challenge premises, grow the surface to the ambitious wholeThe problem is worth solving and the current plan under-serves the opportunity
SELECTIVE EXPANSIONHold the core scope, cherry-pick the highest-leverage expansions onlyA good core exists; add the few pieces that multiply its value
HOLD SCOPEMaximum rigor: no growth, nail exactly the declared scopeScope is already right / constrained by time or dependencies
SCOPE REDUCTIONStrip to essentials; cut anything not load-bearing for the core outcomeThe plan is bloated, or the narrowest valuable slice is what should ship

Rules

  • The mode is a decision, not a default. State it explicitly and record it (in the plan or an ADR). "Let me just hold scope" without saying so is not a scope review.
  • SCOPE EXPANSION must still produce a shippable first slice — expanding the vision never excuses skipping a narrow wedge to land today.
  • Challenge premises in the mode: if the mode expands, challenge the "why not bigger"; if it reduces, challenge "why is this necessary". The challenge is the review.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

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.

Check your setup, free