A highly actionable, well-sequenced read-only analysis skill with explicit validation guardrails against the dangerous '0% reads as PASS' failure mode. Its only weakness is repetitive over-explanation of that same edge case across three phases.

Suggestions

Consolidate the NOT ASSESSED hazard rationale into Phase 4 only; the Phase 3 template blockquote could be reduced to a one-line rendering rule ('if NOT ASSESSED, omit numeric block and state which side was unreadable').

Define where [start-date] in the git log command comes from (e.g., the baseline document's date or sprint start), so the command is copy-paste ready.

Trim rhetorical flourishes like 'Nothing was compared. Nothing was on track.' — the bare conditions already convey the failure mode.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean with no concept-explaining padding, but the 'zero items renders as PASS' hazard is explained three separate times — a 6-line blockquote inside the Phase 3 template, three Phase 4 bullets with rhetorical flourishes ('Nothing was compared. Nothing was on track.'), and again in Phase 5. This repeated rationale could be consolidated.	3 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable instruction-only guidance: exact baseline file paths ('design/gdd/[feature].md', 'production/sprints/sprint-003.md'), a concrete command ('git log --oneline --since=[start-date]'), a complete copy-paste report template with tables, and precise verdict thresholds (≤10%/10–25%/25–50%/>50%).	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Five clearly sequenced phases with explicit validation checkpoints: Phase 1 stops without a baseline, Phase 4's NOT ASSESSED guardrails (empty baseline, unreadable current state, zero denominator) verify the percentage means something, and Phase 5 gives verdict-specific error recovery including 'Do not offer a re-run against the same inputs'.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist or are needed; the single SKILL.md is appropriately sectioned (Phases 1–5, Rules) with all content — the report template and verdict table — core to execution. Cross-references to /sprint-plan and /estimate are clearly signaled and appropriate.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A concise, third-person description with a distinct niche, a natural user-voice trigger, and three concrete capabilities. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause and coverage of the skill's full capability set (removals, risk, verdicts).

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about scope creep, bloat, or whether the work has drifted from the plan.'

Mention scope removals and the PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict in the capability list for fuller coverage of what the skill outputs.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('current scope versus the original plan') and three concrete third-person actions ('Flags additions, quantifies bloat, recommends cuts'). Not 5 because coverage has gaps — the skill also tracks removals, assesses risk, and issues verdicts, none of which appear.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (flags, quantifies, recommends) and the quoted "'Any scope creep?'" serves as explicit trigger guidance, so it clears the missing-'Use when' cap of 3. Not 5 because the 'when' remains an implied quoted question rather than an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keyword coverage ('scope creep', 'scope', 'bloat', 'original plan', 'cuts') plus the user-voice trigger "'Any scope creep?'". Not 5 because common variations like 'scope change', 'feature bloat', or 'over budget' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche — comparing planned vs actual scope — with a distinct trigger phrase that no other skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk; fits the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor exactly.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
Path: .claude/skills/scope-check/SKILL.md
Commit: b21fa0f

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.