Scope check
Skill IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/game-studios-template/.claude/skills/scope-check
AI-powered Unity game development studio for Claude Code - 49 agents, 120+ skills, and a full studio hierarchy that turns a single AI session into a coordinated game dev team. View more about me in my portfolio.
npx -y skills add IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio --skill scope-checkAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 8 stars8 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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'.
SKILL.md
4.2 KB, 977 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in 977 tokens
Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Read the output and check the exit codein 54 of 1195, across 14 files
- Verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
- Identify the verification command proving the claimin 51 of 1195, across 12 files
- Run the full verification commandin 50 of 1195, across 11 files
- Verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 12 files
- Check version control diff after agent delegationin 46 of 1195, across 6 files
- State claim with evidencein 44 of 1195, across 4 files
- Run the test suitein 33 of 1195, across 26 files
- Keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
- Make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
- Produce a verification reportin 25 of 1195, across 14 files
- Detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files
Said here and by no other author read
- locate baseline scope document
- stop if baseline document is missing
- scan codebase for feature files
- read git log for related commits
- check for TODO or FIXME comments
- compare original scope against current scope
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.