How do I install the Scope Control skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add evoclaw/scope-control in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Scope Control safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Scope Control?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Scope Control free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Scope Control?

EvoClaw (@evoclaw) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Scope Control by evoclaw — Agent Skill

Name: Scope Control
Author: EvoClaw

File contents

Scope Control (Meta-Control Layer)

Overview

A focused paper with 1–2 strong contributions beats a scattered paper with 5 weak ones. This skill can trigger at ANY phase when scope expansion is detected.

Core principle: Focus is a feature. Scope creep is a bug.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

Trigger Conditions

Any ONE of these activates this skill:

Contribution points or innovation claims exceed 2
Experiment matrix is exploding (too many method × dataset × setting combinations)
Story line is splitting into unrelated threads
Time or resource budget is being exceeded
User adds "one more thing" that substantially changes project scope

The Mandatory Response

When triggered, the agent MUST execute all four steps in order:

1. WARN:     "Current scope may be too large for [target venue] as a single paper."
2. QUANTIFY: "Current experiment plan requires ~X GPU-hours. Budget is Y. Excess: Z%."
             or "There are N contribution points. A focused paper typically has 1-2."
3. PROPOSE:  Reduction options, prioritized:
             a) Core contribution to keep
             b) Items to defer to future work
             c) Items to cut entirely
4. PRESENT:  User decides. Agent cannot decide scope reduction on its own.

Skip any step = scope creep enabled = paper quality at risk

Rules

The agent proposes reductions but never executes them without user approval.
Deferred items go into an explicit "future work" log — they are not forgotten, just prioritized out.
After user decides, update the plan and re-verify scope is within bounds.

Red Flags — STOP

Adding a third major contribution
Experiment table exceeding one page
Story line requiring two separate introductions
"Just one more baseline" appearing more than twice
Resource estimate exceeding budget by more than 30%

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"We can fit it all in"	Page limits exist. Reviewers penalize unfocused papers.
"Each piece is small"	Small pieces compound into confusion.
"We already did the work"	Sunk cost. Extra work that dilutes the paper hurts more than helps.
"The reviewer might ask for it"	Anticipate reviewers, but don't preemptively answer every possible question.

The Bottom Line

More contributions ≠ better paper
Focused contribution + strong evidence = acceptance

Detect expansion. Quantify risk. Propose cuts. Let the user decide.

---name: scope-controldescription: Use when scope expansion is detected at any phase — enforces focus by quantifying risk and requiring explicit user approval before scope changes---# Scope Control (Meta-Control Layer)## OverviewA focused paper with 1–2 strong contributions beats a scattered paper with 5 weak ones. This skill can trigger at ANY phase when scope expansion is detected.**Core principle:** Focus is a feature. Scope creep is a bug.**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**## Trigger ConditionsAny ONE of these activates this skill:- Contribution points or innovation claims exceed 2- Experiment matrix is exploding (too many method × dataset × setting combinations)- Story line is splitting into unrelated threads- Time or resource budget is being exceeded- User adds "one more thing" that substantially changes project scope## The Mandatory ResponseWhen triggered, the agent MUST execute all four steps in order:```1. WARN: "Current scope may be too large for [target venue] as a single paper."2. QUANTIFY: "Current experiment plan requires ~X GPU-hours. Budget is Y. Excess: Z%." or "There are N contribution points. A focused paper typically has 1-2."3. PROPOSE: Reduction options, prioritized: a) Core contribution to keep b) Items to defer to future work c) Items to cut entirely4. PRESENT: User decides. Agent cannot decide scope reduction on its own.Skip any step = scope creep enabled = paper quality at risk```## Rules- The agent proposes reductions but never executes them without user approval.- Deferred items go into an explicit "future work" log — they are not forgotten, just prioritized out.- After user decides, update the plan and re-verify scope is within bounds.## Red Flags — STOP- Adding a third major contribution- Experiment table exceeding one page- Story line requiring two separate introductions- "Just one more baseline" appearing more than twice- Resource estimate exceeding budget by more than 30%## Rationalization Prevention| Excuse | Reality ||--------|---------|| "We can fit it all in" | Page limits exist. Reviewers penalize unfocused papers. || "Each piece is small" | Small pieces compound into confusion. || "We already did the work" | Sunk cost. Extra work that dilutes the paper hurts more than helps. || "The reviewer might ask for it" | Anticipate reviewers, but don't preemptively answer every possible question. |## The Bottom Line```More contributions ≠ better paperFocused contribution + strong evidence = acceptance```Detect expansion. Quantify risk. Propose cuts. Let the user decide.

Frequently asked questions

Scope Control