scope-change-controller

Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter. Trigger on: 'scope change', 'out of scope', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'additional work', 'scope review', 'what changed from the original scope', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'the budget assumed', 'OOS report', 'scope call with the client', 'run a scope report'.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

72%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A rich, highly actionable instruction skill with excellent concrete templates and clear Standard/Extended sequencing, but it is a monolithic ~290-line file with no progressive disclosure into bundle files and lacks explicit validation checkpoints in its workflow.

Suggestions

Split the Extended templates (full scope register schema, OOS register entry, Excel workbook structure, retrospective, OOS call agenda) into a reference file and keep only the Standard flow and a pointer in SKILL.md to improve progressive_disclosure and reduce token load.

Add explicit validation/feedback checkpoints to the step-by-step process — e.g., 'confirm the baseline assumptions with the team before extracting the register' and 're-validate the OOS item against the baseline before drafting client communication' — to lift workflow_clarity.

Tighten repeated framing (the '15 minutes to 30 seconds' overhead point and the 'capture vs confirm' philosophy each appear multiple times) to improve conciseness without losing the key insight.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is information-dense and largely avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but at ~290 lines it is long and includes some restated philosophy and repeated framing ('the barrier drops from 15 minutes to 30 seconds' appears twice in slightly different forms) that could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-ready templates (scope summary table, OOS list table, client communication draft with exact wording, full scope register field schema, Excel tab structure) — guidance is specific and directly usable rather than abstract.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced and labelled, and the Standard/Extended split is explicit, but there are no validation checkpoints for risky actions; the only 'verify' step is asking the user about matter size, so the validation-feedback-loop bar for a 3 is not met.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clearly headed sections, but the entire skill is a single ~290-line SKILL.md with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/) and no offloaded detail, so the one-level-deep reference structure that earns a 3 is absent.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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 strong, specific description that clearly conveys a distinct legal-scope-management niche with both 'what' and 'when' guidance. Trigger terms are natural and comprehensive; minor risk is length, but every clause earns its place.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective' plus the deliverable verbs (review scoping assumptions, draft a scope change notice, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report) — clearly above the 'names domain and some actions' level.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly states both what the skill does (scope management across baseline capture, change control, OOS documentation, retrospective) and when to use it via a 'Use when...' clause and a 'Trigger on:' list — both halves are explicit.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural phrases a user would say ('out of scope', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'scope call with the client'), with strong coverage of common variations rather than just technical jargon.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The legal-matter scope-management niche with OOS-specific triggers ('scope change', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'scope call with the client') is distinct and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: legalopsconsulting/lpm-skills
Commit: 178ed52

Reviewed: 6 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.