# Extract Scope Terms From Matter Plan > Extracting scope terms from engagement materials requires identifying scope-defining provisions across the relevant engagement materials, then flagging any inter-document inconsistencies that create ambiguity about what work is authorized. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-scope-terms-from-matter-plan` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-scope-terms-from-matter-plan` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-scope-terms-from-matter-plan/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-scope-terms-from-matter-plan --- # Skill: Extract Scope Terms from Matter Plan — Structured Extraction Report ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Read the full engagement set before extracting any term; scope language is often split across the matter plan, engagement letter, budget, and related communications. - Identify the document set first, then determine whether there is a later revision, addendum, amendment, or negotiated email chain that changes scope. - Treat the task as both extraction and comparison: the output must surface each scope-defining term and the places where documents diverge. - If the materials include a hierarchy or order-of-precedence clause, use it to frame which source governs each point of conflict. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Summarizing scope from only one source instead of cross-referencing the whole set. - Missing later communications that modify or clarify scope before the formal documents were updated. - Treating all scope language as equally operative without testing document hierarchy or temporal priority. - Listing inconsistencies without saying which document appears controlling under the stated hierarchy. - Failing to connect scope definitions to the budget, phase structure, or approval conditions that determine what work is actually authorized. - Collapsing distinct categories of work into one general description and thereby hiding partial exclusions, conditions, or carve-outs. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Outside counsel and engagement materials commonly allocate different functions across documents: one document may set relationship terms, another may define the workstream, and a budget or phase plan may constrain what is presently authorized. - Scope creep is a central billing-risk concept: work performed outside the defined authorization may be disputed absent written approval or a clear amendment. - Phase-based plans often make later work contingent on completion, review, or express client approval of earlier phases. - Negotiation communications can matter if they record agreed changes; they should be checked for scope commitments not carried into the formal text. - The governing analysis is document-based rather than abstract: identify the operative clause, the source hierarchy, and the consequence of any mismatch. - When citing any legal or practice proposition in the report, identify the controlling authority as stated in the source materials or as the relevant governing rule or practice norm. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start by enumerating the source documents and their dates, versions, and apparent status before comparing terms. - For each document, extract every clause that defines, limits, expands, conditions, or excludes scope, including phase gates, approval triggers, assumptions, carve-outs, staffing constraints, and budget-linked limits. - Separate true scope terms from background recitals or administrative detail unless the language changes what work is authorized. - Build a term-by-term crosswalk so the same concept is compared across documents rather than summarized globally. - Where multiple sources address the same term, test whether they are consistent, partially overlapping, or in tension. - For each tension, identify the apparent controlling source using the stated hierarchy, then flag any residual ambiguity that the hierarchy does not resolve. - Review the budget or estimate against the phase structure and scope language to determine whether the planned resources align with the authorized work. - If the materials contain approval or sign-off mechanics, capture those as scope conditions, not mere process notes. - If a later document narrows or expands earlier language, note the change expressly and treat the later text as potentially superseding the earlier text on the addressed topic. - Keep the analysis anchored in the words used in the materials; do not infer unstated scope from business context alone. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Later-dated revisions, amendments, or confirmations may supersede earlier scope language for the topics they address. - A document that is higher in the stated hierarchy may control on the subject it governs even if another document is more detailed on a different subject. - Phase sequencing matters: a later phase may not be authorized until a prior milestone or client approval is satisfied. - If the materials contain conflicting dates, version labels, or execution timing, resolve them before treating any clause as operative. - If budget terms were updated after the underlying scope language, note whether the budget reflects the updated scope or lags behind it. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Use a structured extraction table with fields that map each scope term to its source, location, and governance status. - Include a separate inconsistency register that states the conflicting terms, the documents involved, the apparent control rule, and any unresolved ambiguity. - Include a concise hierarchy note explaining which document type appears to govern which category of scope term. - Include a budget alignment note where the materials permit comparison between authorized scope and allocated resources. - Use a clear issue taxonomy such as: aligned, modified, inconsistent, conditional, or unresolved. - Keep the report analytical rather than narrative; the reader should be able to trace each scope term back to a source location. - File the deliverable under the name specified in the task instructions: `scope-extraction-report.docx`.