scope-guard
Skill0 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when making code changes to prevent scope creep, over-engineering, and unrelated modifications beyond what was asked. Activates on any task involving file edits to enforce strict scope boundaries, flag unnecessary extras, and ensure changes match the request — nothing more, nothing less. Prevents bloat, YAGNI violations, and unsolicited refactoring.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendopstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- runbooklabhq/freelancer-ops-skills-litetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- OrionArchitekton/orion-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- drvoss/everything-copilot-clitheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- CalebAnderson-Coder/ai-agency-os-startertheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- CorvusWing/CorvusWingtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- drvoss/everything-copilot-cli★ 48same name
- ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendops★ 3same name
- OrionArchitekton/orion-skills★ 2same name
- CorvusWing/CorvusWing★ 1same name
- dylanburkey/claude-code-sidekick★ 1same name
- InsightStudio-2026/agent-assets★ 1same name
- kaelen2026/skills★ 1same name
- CalebAnderson-Coder/ai-agency-os-starter★ 0same name
- grxkun/scope-guard★ 0same name
- kritikosgns-web/freelancer-ops-skills-lite★ 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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- dead-code-cleanerSkill
- loop-breakerSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 32
Before making any edit, state explicitly:
- Distinctive: line 35
FILES IN SCOPE: Only files that must change to complete the task
- Distinctive: line 41
Before each file modification, pass this check:
- Distinctive: line 55
When you notice something outside scope that could be improved:
- Distinctive: line 57
Do NOT silently change it
- Distinctive: line 58
Add it to a "Suggestions for future work" note at the end of your response
- Distinctive: line 60
Only act on it if the user explicitly approves scope expansion
- Distinctive: line 64
After completing the task, verify:
- Distinctive: line 66
Every modified file was in the FILES IN SCOPE list
- Distinctive: line 67
Every change directly serves the stated TASK
- Distinctive: line 68
No unrelated variables were renamed
- Distinctive: line 69
No unrelated imports were added, removed, or reordered
- Distinctive: line 70
No unrelated formatting changes were made
- Distinctive: line 71
No functions beyond the target were refactored
- Distinctive: line 73
If any change fails this audit, revert it before presenting work.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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
Scope Guard
Prevent AI scope creep. Every edit must trace directly to what was asked. Unsolicited improvements are unsolicited problems.
The Iron Law
"Do what was asked. Nothing more, nothing less."
Any change not explicitly requested is a change the user must review, understand, and maintain. Extra changes waste time, introduce risk, and erode trust.
Red Flags — Stop Immediately If You Think:
| Thought | Why It's Wrong |
| "While I'm here, I might as well..." | You are not here for that. Stay on task. |
| "This import is unused, let me clean it up" | Cleanup is not your task. Note it, move on. |
| "This could be refactored to be better" | Better is the enemy of done. |
| "This variable name is inconsistent" | Is renaming in scope? No? Then don't. |
| "I noticed a bug in this other function" | Log it as a suggestion. Don't fix it. |
| "Let me restructure these imports" | Were you asked to touch imports? No. |
| "This pattern is outdated, I'll modernize it" | Modernization is a separate task. |
The Process
Step 1 — Define Scope Before Writing Code
Before making any edit, state explicitly:
- TASK: One sentence describing what was asked
- FILES IN SCOPE: Only files that must change to complete the task
- WHAT DONE LOOKS LIKE: The observable outcome when finished
- OUT OF SCOPE: What you will NOT touch
Step 2 — Gate Every Edit
Before each file modification, pass this check:
Is this edit required to complete the stated TASK?
YES → Proceed
NO → Is it in the FILES IN SCOPE list?
YES → But does it directly serve the TASK?
YES → Proceed
NO → STOP. Do not make this edit.
NO → STOP. Do not make this edit.Step 3 — Handle Out-of-Scope Observations
When you notice something outside scope that could be improved:
- Do NOT silently change it
- Add it to a "Suggestions for future work" note at the end of your response
- Continue with the actual task
- Only act on it if the user explicitly approves scope expansion
Step 4 — Post-Task Scope Audit
After completing the task, verify:
- Every modified file was in the FILES IN SCOPE list
- Every change directly serves the stated TASK
- No unrelated variables were renamed
- No unrelated imports were added, removed, or reordered
- No unrelated formatting changes were made
- No functions beyond the target were refactored
If any change fails this audit, revert it before presenting work.
Common Rationalizations (All Invalid)
- "It's a one-line fix" — Scope is not measured in lines. Unrelated is unrelated.
- "It was right there" — Proximity is not permission.
- "Any good developer would do this" — A good developer respects the task boundary.
- "It won't break anything" — Every extra change is extra review burden. That is the breakage.
- "It's best practice" — Best practice is also: don't touch what you weren't asked to touch.
Flowchart
[Receive Task]
|
v
[Define TASK, FILES IN SCOPE, DONE criteria, OUT OF SCOPE]
|
v
[Pick next edit to make] <-----------------------+
| |
v |
[Is this edit required for the TASK?] |
| |
YES → [Make the edit] → [More edits needed?] --+
| |
NO → [Log as suggestion] NO
| |
v v
[Continue without changing] [Run scope audit]
|
v
[All changes in scope?]
| |
YES NO
| |
v v
[Present [Revert out-of-scope
work] changes, then present]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
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.

