Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› scope-creep-response
scope-creep-response
GitHub协助处理客户范围蔓延，通过比对协议分类需求，提供从善意豁免到变更订单的分级回复话术，并生成预防性合同条款以维护客户关系并保护边界。
Trigger Scenarios
询问如何礼貌拒绝超出范围的需求
需要撰写变更订单邮件
判断当前请求是否属于范围蔓延
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill scope-creep-response -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "scope-creep-response",
"description": "Handle scope creep on client work without torching the relationship — classify the ask against the agreement, respond with the goodwill\/change-order\/renegotiate move that fits, and install the prevention language for next time. Use when asked my client keeps adding requests, is this scope creep, how do I say that's out of scope nicely, or write a change order email. Produces the classification of the ask, the graduated response with ready-to-send wording, and the contract language that prevents the rerun."
}
Scope Creep Response Skill
Scope creep is rarely malicious — it's a client who genuinely can't tell the difference between "small tweak" and "new workstream," talking to a freelancer afraid that any boundary costs the relationship. The damage comes from the two failure modes: absorbing everything silently (resentment, then a blowup over something trivial) or lawyering every request (death by friction). This skill runs the middle path: classify honestly, respond proportionally, and make the structure hold the boundary so the person doesn't have to.
What This Skill Produces
- The classification — in-scope / gray / clearly-out, argued against the actual agreement text, including the honest case for the client's reading
- The graduated response — goodwill grant, flag-and-track, change order, or renegotiation — with ready-to-send wording
- The change-order artifact — small, friendly, priced; a form not a confrontation
- The prevention layer — scope language, revision counts, and the "great idea — phase 2" ritual for the next contract
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- What the agreement actually says — the scope text verbatim; if scope was never written down, that's the finding, and the response changes (you can't cite what doesn't exist)
- The asks so far — list them; one gray-zone request and a drip of twelve "tiny things" are different situations
- Relationship context — client value, history, how earlier extras were handled (silently absorbed extras set precedent that must be un-set gently)
- Their goal — keep the client happily, get paid for the extras, or exit gracefully — the same classification routes to different responses
Framework: The Graduated Response Rules
- Classify against text, not feelings: read the ask against the written scope, steelmanning the client's interpretation. Gray zones are usually real ambiguity — treat them as shared drafting failure, not bad faith. No written scope? Then the move is defining it forward ("let me write up what's in the remaining work so we're aligned"), not litigating backward.
- Grant goodwill deliberately and say so: small extras can be smart — but visibly: "Happy to include this one — it's beyond the original scope, but it's quick." Invisible generosity reads as included-all-along and becomes the new baseline.
- The change order is the boundary: for real additions, enthusiasm + process: "Great addition. It's outside the current scope — here's a quick change order: [thing], [price], [timeline impact]. Approve and I'll start." The form does the confronting; the freelancer just does paperwork.
- Name patterns at the pattern level: the twelfth small ask gets a zoom-out, not a twelfth skirmish: "These small additions are adding up to real time — let's set up a monthly bucket of N hours for odds and ends so you can just send them over." Sells the fix as convenience, because it is.
- Prevention is contract language: next agreement carries: enumerated deliverables, revision counts ("two revision rounds; further rounds at $X"), an explicit exclusions line, and a change-request clause. The phase-2 parking lot ("love it — capturing for phase 2") lets you say yes-later instead of no.
Output Format
Scope Response: [client, ask(s)]
Classification
[In / gray / out — quoting the agreement text · the client's plausible reading, stated fairly · pattern or one-off]
The Move
[Which response and why, given their goal]
Ready to send:
[The email/message, verbatim — warm, brief, boundary carried by process not tone]
Change Order (if applicable)
[Thing · price · timeline impact · approval line — 5 lines, friendly]
Prevention (next contract / next phase)
[Scope language to add · revision counts · exclusions line · the phase-2 ritual]
Quality Checks
- Classification quotes the agreement (or names its absence as the root cause)
- The client's interpretation is steelmanned before being answered
- Goodwill grants are labeled as such in the wording — never silent
- The send-ready text is warm; the boundary lives in the process, not the tone
- Prevention language included whenever the pattern is recurring
Anti-Patterns
- Do not absorb silently — every unlabeled extra resets the baseline
- Do not meet a gray-zone ask with contract-lawyer tone — ambiguity is shared fault
- Do not litigate the past on an unwritten scope — define forward instead
- Do not fight the twelfth small ask individually — name the pattern and sell the structural fix
- Do not say "no" where "yes, via change order" or "yes, in phase 2" is true — those keep the relationship AND the boundary
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:59
