s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

Name: s4h-constraint-scope-reduction
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-constraint-scope-reduction?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Finds the minimum that satisfies the actual requirement — stripping everything wanted but not needed. Triggers: 'minimum viable', 'what's the minimum', 'strip this back', 'what do we actually need', 'scope reduction', 'simplify the requirement'.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Constraint Scope Reduction
2
3	Scope grows because wants accumulate alongside needs, and no one separates them. This skill
4	forces that separation. The goal is not to build less — it is to find the version where
5	every element is doing real work, and nothing is there because it sounded good in the
6	planning meeting.
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Full Current Scope
13	List everything in the current plan, feature set, or requirement. Be complete — you can
14	only strip what you've named.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the constraint and the goal it is blocking before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific scope being reduced and the core job it must accomplish — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the scope and the core job it must accomplish]. Is that right?"
18	- Header: "Framing"
19	- Options:
20	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
21	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
22	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Find the Core Job
25	Ask: what is the single verb this must do? Not what it should do, what it must do. Strip
26	all nouns and adjectives until only the job remains. "A user can complete a purchase" is a
27	job. "A seamless, intuitive checkout experience" is not.
28
29	Step 3: Classify Each Element — Must or Want
30	For every element in scope: is it required for the core job (must) or desired beyond it
31	(want)? Apply pressure to musts — if you removed it, would the core job fail?
32
33	Step 4: Remove All Wants and Test
34	Drop every want. Confirm: can the core job still be done? If yes, the wants were not load-
35	bearing. If no, you've found a hidden must — reclassify and investigate why it felt optional.
36
37	Step 5: Simplify the Musts
38	For each must: is there a simpler way to achieve the same outcome? Simpler means fewer
39	moving parts, less code, lower cost, or faster delivery — not necessarily less effort to
40	design.
41
42	Step 6: State the Minimum Viable Version
43	Write the minimum scope in a single paragraph. It should be possible to build from this
44	description without the original scope document.
45
46	---
47
48	## Human Check-in
49
50	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
51
52	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
53	- Header: "Scope"
54	- Options:
55	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
56	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
57	- Minimum viable scope only — The smallest version that still satisfies the actual need
58	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
59
60	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
61
62	## Output Format
63
64	Current scope:
65	> [Bulleted list of everything in scope]
66
67	Core job (the verb):
68	> [Single sentence]
69
70	Must vs Want classification:
71
72	\| Element \| Must / Want \| Reason \|
73	\|---------\|-------------\|--------\|
74	\| \| \| \|
75
76	What was removed and why it's safe to remove:
77	> [Brief list — each removal with one-line justification]
78
79	Minimum viable scope:
80	> [Single paragraph — buildable without further clarification]
81
82	---
83
84	## Notes
85
86	The most common mistake is reclassifying wants as musts when pressure is applied. Challenge
87	every must: "if we launched without this, what actually breaks?" The answer is usually
88	"nothing breaks, someone would be annoyed."
89
90	---
91
92	## What's Next
93
94	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
95
96	- Question: "Scope reduced. What's next?"
97	- Header: "Next"
98	- Options:
99	- `/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting` — Evaluate options within the reduced scope
100	- `/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis` — Reallocate for the new scope
101	- `/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis` — Stress-test the reduced scope plan
102	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-constraint-scope-reduction?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-constraint-scope-reduction

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Constraint Scope Reduction
2
3	Scope grows because wants accumulate alongside needs, and no one separates them. This skill
4	forces that separation. The goal is not to build less — it is to find the version where
5	every element is doing real work, and nothing is there because it sounded good in the
6	planning meeting.
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Full Current Scope
13	List everything in the current plan, feature set, or requirement. Be complete — you can
14	only strip what you've named.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the constraint and the goal it is blocking before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific scope being reduced and the core job it must accomplish — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the scope and the core job it must accomplish]. Is that right?"
18	- Header: "Framing"
19	- Options:
20	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
21	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
22	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Find the Core Job
25	Ask: what is the single verb this must do? Not what it should do, what it must do. Strip
26	all nouns and adjectives until only the job remains. "A user can complete a purchase" is a
27	job. "A seamless, intuitive checkout experience" is not.
28
29	Step 3: Classify Each Element — Must or Want
30	For every element in scope: is it required for the core job (must) or desired beyond it
31	(want)? Apply pressure to musts — if you removed it, would the core job fail?
32
33	Step 4: Remove All Wants and Test
34	Drop every want. Confirm: can the core job still be done? If yes, the wants were not load-
35	bearing. If no, you've found a hidden must — reclassify and investigate why it felt optional.
36
37	Step 5: Simplify the Musts
38	For each must: is there a simpler way to achieve the same outcome? Simpler means fewer
39	moving parts, less code, lower cost, or faster delivery — not necessarily less effort to
40	design.
41
42	Step 6: State the Minimum Viable Version
43	Write the minimum scope in a single paragraph. It should be possible to build from this
44	description without the original scope document.
45
46	---
47
48	## Human Check-in
49
50	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
51
52	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
53	- Header: "Scope"
54	- Options:
55	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
56	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
57	- Minimum viable scope only — The smallest version that still satisfies the actual need
58	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
59
60	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
61
62	## Output Format
63
64	Current scope:
65	> [Bulleted list of everything in scope]
66
67	Core job (the verb):
68	> [Single sentence]
69
70	Must vs Want classification:
71
72	\| Element \| Must / Want \| Reason \|
73	\|---------\|-------------\|--------\|
74	\| \| \| \|
75
76	What was removed and why it's safe to remove:
77	> [Brief list — each removal with one-line justification]
78
79	Minimum viable scope:
80	> [Single paragraph — buildable without further clarification]
81
82	---
83
84	## Notes
85
86	The most common mistake is reclassifying wants as musts when pressure is applied. Challenge
87	every must: "if we launched without this, what actually breaks?" The answer is usually
88	"nothing breaks, someone would be annoyed."
89
90	---
91
92	## What's Next
93
94	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
95
96	- Question: "Scope reduced. What's next?"
97	- Header: "Next"
98	- Options:
99	- `/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting` — Evaluate options within the reduced scope
100	- `/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis` — Reallocate for the new scope
101	- `/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis` — Stress-test the reduced scope plan
102	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type