Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/scope-check/SKILL.md

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model

name	description	argument-hint	user-invocable	allowed-tools	model
scope-check	Scope creep check — current scope versus the original plan. Flags additions, quantifies bloat, recommends cuts. 'Any scope creep?'	[feature-name or sprint-N]	true	Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *)	haiku

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 — the whole string: a feature name (it may be several words), 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].md or matching file in design/
• Sprint number (e.g., sprint-3) → read production/sprints/sprint-003.md (the name /sprint-plan writes) or 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]

> **If Phase 4 will return NOT ASSESSED, do not render the numeric block below.**
> Replace the counts and the Bloat Score with
> `[Baseline | Current state] unusable — see verdict` (whichever side could not
> be read) and give the reason. A rendered
> `Original items: 0 / Net scope change: 0%` one section above a NOT ASSESSED
> verdict re-creates the exact "0% reads as on track" hazard Phase 4 exists to
> kill, one phase earlier — and readers trust a number over a caveat.

### 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

Before applying that table, check that the percentage means something. Emit NOT ASSESSED instead — never a computed percentage — when any of:

• The baseline document exists but enumerates no scope items (all headings, placeholders, or [TO BE CONFIGURED]). Phase 1 stops when the file is absent; this is the case where it is present and empty, and it is the more dangerous one, because zero items yields a 0% net change that renders as PASS — On Track. Nothing was compared. Nothing was on track.
• The current state cannot be determined — no related source files, no commits in the window, nothing in progress to read. Comparing a real baseline against an unreadable present is not a 0% change, and not the −100% that zero current items computes — the table reads both as PASS.
• The denominator would be zero for any other reason. A percentage computed from no baseline items is not a small number; it is not a number.

NOT ASSESSED outranks PASS (a comparison that never happened has not shown scope is on track) and ranks below CONCERNS and FAIL (measured creep is more actionable than an unmeasurable baseline).

Output the verdict prominently:

**Scope Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / NOT ASSESSED / FAIL]**
Net change: [+X%] — [On Track / Minor Creep / Significant Creep / Out of Control]
           [or: NOT ASSESSED — [which side could not be read, and why]]

---

Phase 5: Next Steps

After presenting the report, offer concrete follow-up:

• PASS → no action required. Suggest re-running before next milestone.
• NOT ASSESSED → say which side was unreadable and what would fix it (populate the baseline document, or point the skill at where the work actually lives). Do not offer a re-run against the same inputs — it will produce the same non-answer.
• CONCERNS → offer to identify the 2–3 additions with best cut ratio. Reference /sprint-plan update to formally re-scope (if the project has no sprint plan, as on the default minimal workflow, re-scope by editing the brief's build order).
• FAIL → recommend escalating to producer. Reference /sprint-plan update for re-planning (if the project has no sprint plan, as on the default minimal workflow, edit the brief's build order) or /estimate to re-baseline timeline.

End every verdict except NOT ASSESSED with:

"Run /scope-check [name] again after cuts are made to verify the verdict improves."

(NOT ASSESSED ends with what would make it assessable, above — a re-run against the same inputs would repeat the non-answer.)

---

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