Sow draft

Skill stanislavnianko/product-discovery-claude-skills/plugins/discovery-phase/skills/sow-draft

Curated Claude skill pack for structured product discovery

Install

npx -y skills add stanislavnianko/product-discovery-claude-skills --skill sow-draft

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 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

[discovery-phase pack · deliverables] Drafts a Statement of Work for legal/procurement review post-proposal acceptance. Captures deliverables, acceptance criteria, payment milestones, change-request process, warranties, and termination clauses. NOT a substitute for legal review. Produces sow-draft.md.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

SoW Draft

Part of the discovery-phase skill pack · deliverables group · reads discovery-context.md (run profile-builder first if missing).

Statement of Work draft for the legal team to harden. The discovery team's job is to capture commercial reality precisely; legal then translates to enforceable terms.

This skill produces a draft, not a contract. Always route through agency legal + client legal before signing. The discovery team should not be the last line of defense on contract terms.

Step 1 — Read context + prerequisites

Read discovery-context.md (sections 3. Engagement → Budget context — drives payment structure; 6. Constraints — regulatory clauses), scope-doc.md (deliverables + exclusions), and estimation.md (pricing structure). Recommended: proposal.md (consistency with what's already shared with client) and risk-assumption-map.md (informs warranty language).

If discovery-context.md is missing, ask the BA inline: "(a) budget structure (fixed-fee / T&M / milestone-based); (b) regulatory constraints (GDPR / HIPAA / SOC2 / none)?" — tag the output [ASSUMED COMMERCIAL] and DRAFT-ONLY. If scope-doc.md or estimation.md is missing, ask for stand-in bullets, or proceed with [TBD] placeholders and a non-removable DRAFT-ONLY banner — NOT for legal review until placeholders resolved. Never block; recommend profile-builder / feature-scoping / estimation for high-stakes work.

Step 2 — Fill the template

Fill ./template.md. It owns the structure (parties, deliverables table, out-of-scope, timeline + milestones, pricing model, payment terms, change-requests, acceptance + revisions, warranties, IP + confidentiality, termination, client dependencies, assumptions, outsourcing-specific clauses, signatures). This skill's job is the content; the template is the shape.

Fields that hide disputes — be precise here:

Acceptance criteria (per deliverable). "User can complete X workflow without errors" not "system works". Vague = future dispute.
Out of scope. Verbatim from scope-doc.md "out" + "explicitly deferred". Critical — prevents post-signature scope creep.
Pricing model. Pick from discovery-context.md budget context: fixed-fee (tight scope, repeat work) / T&M with cap (moderate uncertainty) / pure T&M (staff aug, exploratory) / phased (long engagement with gates). Spell out: rates per discipline if T&M, fixed numbers if fixed-fee, milestone amounts if phased.
Change-request process. Without it, every "small addition" mid-build becomes an argument. Specify: who can request, how submitted, estimation turnaround (3-5 business days typical), sign-off authority, how changes affect price + timeline.
Warranties. What the agency warrants (e.g., 30-60 day bug-fix window post-delivery) AND what's NOT warranted (third-party issues, scope changes, environment). Bound from risk-assumption-map.md [agency] rows.
Client dependencies. From scope-doc.md outsourcing extras + risk-map [client] rows. State explicitly that delays may impact timeline + cost. Don't bury — top-section visible.
Assumptions. Verbatim from estimation.md "Assumptions that invalidate the estimate". If any becomes false, SoW is voidable / must be amended.

Step 3 — Outsourcing-specific clauses (often missed)

Add to template's section 14 if relevant:

Time-zone overlap requirement — if context shows distributed teams
Subcontractor disclosure — does the agency use subs? Client right to approve?
Data handling — GDPR / HIPAA / SOC2 specifics if section 6 flagged any
Communication cadence SLA — response times, meeting cadence
Tooling rights — who provides Linear/Jira/Slack/Figma seats; ownership of artifacts

Step 4 — Output

./discovery/sow-draft.md per ./template.md. Mark prominently at top:

DRAFT — REQUIRES AGENCY LEGAL + CLIENT LEGAL REVIEW BEFORE EXECUTION.

Append to _log.md: [sow-draft | YYYY-MM-DD] pricing: <model>; deliverables: <count>; acceptance_defined: <Y/N>; legal_review: pending.

Anti-patterns

Ambiguous acceptance criteria. "Acceptance: when client says ok" = future dispute. Be precise.
No change-request process. Mid-build scope additions become free, then resented, then disputed.
Pricing structure mismatch. Fixed-fee on uncertain scope = either agency loses money or client gets hidden change requests.
Dependencies on client buried. They must be top-section visible.
Skipping legal review. This skill produces a draft; the BA must route to legal.