agentleFS
scotidevscotidev/GameDevStudio/.agents/skills/scope-check/SKILL.md

scope-check

Skill1 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Analyze a feature or sprint for scope creep by comparing current scope against the original plan. Flags additions, quantifies bloat, and recommends cuts.

26 other projects use a version of this, 10 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use asset-spec, create-control-manifest and 2 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    asset-spec

    Generate per-asset visual specifications and AI generation prompts from GDDs, level docs, or character profiles. Produces structured spec files and updates the master asset manifest. Run after art bible and GDD/level design are approved, before production begins.

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    create-control-manifest

    After architecture is complete, produces a flat actionable rules sheet for programmers — what you must do, what you must never do, per system and per layer. Extracted from all Accepted ADRs, technical preferences, and engine reference docs. More immediately actionable than ADRs (which explain why).

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • +2 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When this skill is invoked:

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    If a feature name: read the design doc from design/gdd/

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    If a sprint number: read the sprint plan from production/sprints/

    line 14
  4. Very specific:

    If a milestone: read the milestone definition from production/milestones/

    line 15
  5. Distinctive:

    Read git log for commits related to this work

    line 19
  6. Distinctive:

    Check for TODO comments that indicate unfinished scope additions

    line 20
  7. Distinctive:

    Not all additions are bad — some are discovered requirements.

    line 71
  8. Distinctive:

    When recommending cuts, prioritize preserving the core player experience over nice-to-haves

    line 72
  9. Distinctive:

    Always quantify scope changes — "it feels bigger" is not actionable, "+35% items" is

    line 73

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

When this skill is invoked:

  1. Read the original plan — Find the relevant document:
    • If a feature name: read the design doc from design/gdd/
    • If a sprint number: read the sprint plan from production/sprints/
    • If a milestone: read the milestone definition from production/milestones/
  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
    • Check for TODO comments that indicate unfinished scope additions
  3. Compare original vs current scope:

    ## 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 | Who Added | 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]
  4. Output the scope check with a clear verdict:
    • On Track: Scope within 10% of original
    • Minor Creep: 10-25% scope increase — manageable with adjustments
    • Significant Creep: 25-50% scope increase — need to cut or extend timeline
    • Out of Control: >50% scope increase — stop and re-plan

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

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.