Game Dev Code

scope-check

Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · updated Apr 16, 2026

$npx skills add https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill scope-check
summary

### Scope Check

  • description: "Analyze a feature or sprint for scope creep by comparing current scope against the original plan. Flags additions, quantifies bloat, and recommends cuts. Use when user says 'any scope cr
  • argument-hint: "[feature-name or sprint-N]"
  • allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
skill.md

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].md or matching file in design/
  • Sprint number (e.g., sprint-3) → read production/sprints/sprint-03.md 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]

### 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 ChangeVerdictMeaning
≤10%PASSOn Track — within acceptable variance
10–25%CONCERNSMinor Creep — manageable with targeted cuts
25–50%FAILSignificant Creep — must cut or formally extend timeline
>50%FAILOut 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 update to formally re-scope.
  • FAIL → recommend escalating to producer. Reference /sprint-plan update for re-planning or /estimate to 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
general reviews

Ratings

4.543 reviews
  • Hassan Diallo· Dec 28, 2024

    scope-check fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Shikha Mishra· Dec 16, 2024

    Useful defaults in scope-check — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Min Gupta· Dec 16, 2024

    We added scope-check from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Ganesh Mohane· Dec 8, 2024

    scope-check fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Camila Haddad· Dec 8, 2024

    Useful defaults in scope-check — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Ren Huang· Dec 8, 2024

    Registry listing for scope-check matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Sakshi Patil· Nov 27, 2024

    Registry listing for scope-check matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Dev Liu· Nov 27, 2024

    scope-check fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Camila Yang· Nov 19, 2024

    Registry listing for scope-check matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Xiao Nasser· Nov 7, 2024

    scope-check reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

showing 1-10 of 43

1 / 5