Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Before making changes, verifies they match what was actually requested. Catches scope creep before it happens - no "while I'm here" improvements. Use when about to modify files, add features, or refactor code beyond what the user asked for.
.claude/skills/adityapeshave-sophos-stay-in-lane/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 381% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 464% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 798% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -33% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 517% | 0% |
Helpful instincts cause scope creep. User asks to fix a typo, the agent refactors the function. User asks for one feature, agent adds three. This skill forces a scope check before every change: "Was this asked for?"
Ask yourself:
markdown## Scope Check **User asked for:** [restate the request in one sentence] **I'm about to:** [describe the change] **Match?** [Yes / No / Adjacent]
| Match | Action | |-------|--------| | Yes | Proceed | | No | Stop. Don't do it. | | Adjacent | Ask first OR note it for later |
"Adjacent" means related but not requested:
For adjacent work:
The Helpful Refactor: > User: "Fix the typo in the error message" > Agent: rewrites entire error handling system
The Preemptive Feature: > User: "Add a save button" > Agent: adds save, autosave, save-as, and export
The Drive-By Cleanup: > User: "Update the API endpoint" > Agent: also reformats file, adds types, updates imports
The Future-Proofing: > User: "Add user authentication" > Agent: builds role-based permissions, audit logging, SSO
For significant changes, show scope alignment:
markdown## Changes Made **Requested:** [what user asked] **Delivered:** - [x] [matches request] - [x] [matches request] **Not done (out of scope):** - [ ] [thing you resisted doing]
User: "Change the button color from blue to green"
Scope Check: > User asked for: Change button color blue to green > I'm about to: Change the color value in the CSS > Match? Yes
What to resist:
Correct response: > Changed the button color from blue to green in styles.css:47. > > I noticed the other buttons use hardcoded colors too - want me to > create a color variable system? (separate change)
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 12,164 | 7,122 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 314 | 1,277 | +307% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 3,013 | 3,953 | +31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 345 | 1,660 | +381% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 5,811 | 5,447 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 352 | 1,985 | +464% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 2,506 | 10,406 | +315% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 249 | 2,235 | +798% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 4,886 | 7,661 | +57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 886 | 1,851 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 8,600 | 4,116 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,720 | 1,726 | +0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 12,072 | 3,485 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,603 | 1,757 | -33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 20,973 | 3,874 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,635 | 1,717 | -63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 3,285 | 6,811 | +107% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 365 | 2,251 | +517% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→fail | 6,471 | 5,687 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,072 | 2,034 | +90% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 6,071 | 3,048 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,035 | 1,509 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 5,530 | 4,144 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 233 | 1,720 | +638% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 10,241 | 6,794 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,024 | 2,277 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 3,715 | 8,113 | +118% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 219 | 2,501 | +1042% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 7,149 | 5,055 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,290 | 1,815 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | 14,935 | 8,019 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,279 | 2,601 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 2,952 | 6,197 | +110% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 185 | 2,141 | +1057% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 4,107 | 4,271 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 188 | 1,783 | +848% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 8,890 | 3,785 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,322 | 1,722 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 5,472 | 7,706 | +41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 655 | 1,930 | +195% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 32,736 | 8,119 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,620 | 2,350 | -35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 3,837 | 3,307 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 615 | 1,533 | +149% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.