scope-check-2eaab7 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited scope-check-2eaab7 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
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.
Locate the baseline scope document for the given argument:
design/gdd/[feature].md or matching file in design/sprint-3) → read production/sprints/sprint-03.md or similarproduction/milestones/[name].mdIf the document is not found, report the missing file and stop. Do not proceed without a baseline to compare against.
Check what has actually been implemented or is in progress:
git log --oneline --since=[start-date])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]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]After presenting the report, offer concrete follow-up:
/sprint-plan update to formally re-scope./sprint-plan update for re-planning or /estimate to re-baseline timeline.Always end with:
"Run /scope-check [name] again after cuts are made to verify the verdict improves."~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.