scope-check▌
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · updated Apr 16, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
### 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
| name | 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 creep', 'scope review', 'are we staying in scope'." |
| argument-hint | "[feature-name or sprint-N]" |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Bash |
| model | 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[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].mdor matching file indesign/ - Sprint number (e.g.,
sprint-3) → readproduction/sprints/sprint-03.mdor 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 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 |
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 updateto formally re-scope. - FAIL → recommend escalating to producer. Reference
/sprint-plan updatefor re-planning or/estimateto 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
How to use scope-check on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add scope-check
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches scope-check from GitHub repository Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate scope-check. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /scope-check) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Accelerate Code Development
Use skill to generate boilerplate code, refactor legacy code, and write tests faster
Example
Generate React component with TypeScript types, styled-components, and comprehensive test suite in minutes
Reduce development time by 40-60% for repetitive coding tasks
Code Review Automation
Systematically review code for bugs, security issues, and style violations
Example
Analyze pull requests for common anti-patterns, suggest performance improvements, flag security vulnerabilities
Catch 70%+ of code issues before human review, improve code quality
Debug Complex Issues
Trace errors through stack traces and identify root causes faster
Example
Analyze error logs, suggest probable causes, recommend fixes with code examples
Cut debugging time by 30-50%, especially for unfamiliar codebases
Learn New Technologies
Get explanations, examples, and best practices for unfamiliar frameworks
Example
Understand Next.js app router, learn Rust ownership, grasp Kubernetes concepts with practical examples
Accelerate learning curve by 2-3x, reduce onboarding time for new tech stacks
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill installation support
- ›Basic understanding of programming concepts and version control (Git)
- ›Code editor or IDE for testing generated code (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.)
- ›Test environment separate from production for validating skill outputs
Time Estimate
15-30 minutes to install and see first useful output
Installation Steps
- 1.Install the skill using provided installation command
- 2.Verify skill is loaded in Claude Desktop (check ~/.claude/skills directory)
- 3.Test skill with simple prompt: 'Help me review this code snippet'
- 4.Gradually increase complexity: code generation → refactoring → architecture advice
- 5.Review all generated code before committing to repository
- 6.Iterate on prompts to improve output quality and relevance
- 7.Share effective prompts with team for consistency
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Blindly trusting generated code without testing—always run tests and manual review
- ⚠Not providing enough context about your project structure and coding standards
- ⚠Expecting perfection on first generation—iteration and refinement are normal
- ⚠Sharing proprietary code or API keys in prompts—maintain confidentiality
- ⚠Over-relying on skill for critical security or business logic code
- ⚠Skipping documentation of why AI-generated code was chosen over alternatives
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Always review and test AI-generated code before merging
- +Provide clear context: language, framework, coding standards, constraints
- +Use for boilerplate, tests, docs—areas where mistakes are easily caught
- +Iterate on prompts: start broad, refine with specific requirements
- +Combine AI suggestions with human judgment and domain expertise
- +Document successful prompt patterns for team reuse
- +Keep version control so you can rollback if needed
- +Use skill for learning and exploration, not production-critical features initially
✗ Don't
- −Don't commit AI code without thorough testing and review
- −Don't expose sensitive code, credentials, or proprietary algorithms
- −Don't use for security-critical code (auth, crypto, payments) without expert review
- −Don't skip peer review process just because AI generated it
- −Don't assume code follows your team's conventions—verify
- −Don't let junior developers skip learning fundamentals by relying solely on AI
- −Don't ignore compiler warnings or test failures in generated code
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Describe desired patterns explicitly: 'Use async/await, avoid callbacks'
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 approaches to solve this, with tradeoffs'
- ★Request explanations: 'Explain why this approach is better than X'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% manual refinement for best results
- ★Build a prompt library for common patterns (API endpoints, components, tests)
- ★Pair program with AI: describe problem → review solution → iterate → refine
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use coding skills for boilerplate generation, code reviews, refactoring legacy code, writing tests, learning new frameworks, and debugging non-critical issues. Best for repetitive tasks where errors are easy to catch.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for production security features (auth, encryption, payment processing), complex business logic requiring deep domain knowledge, performance-critical algorithms, or when learning fundamentals is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Start with simple tasks: generate functions, write tests, explain code
- 2Progress to code review: analyze PRs, suggest improvements
- 3Advanced: architectural decisions, refactoring strategies, performance optimization
- 4Expert: use for exploring new paradigms, researching best practices, mentoring juniors
Integration▌
- →VS Code
- →JetBrains IDEs
- →Cursor
- →GitHub Copilot
- →Git workflows
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★43 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