Menü
Use when: auditing a Shape Up pitch for completeness, reviewing in-cycle scope discipline, or validating that a betting table decision meets Shape Up principles.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
Use when: reviewing .prompt.md, .agent.md, SKILL.md, or .instructions.md files for contradictions, ambiguity, persona consistency, cognitive load, coverage gaps, and composition conflicts.
Use when: checking xanadAssistant workspace health, install status, repair reasons, or lockfile validity before proposing install, update, repair, or restore operations.
Use when: designing or reviewing CI/CD pipelines, GitHub Actions, stage design, environment gates, or artifact discipline.
Use when: writing or reviewing Dockerfiles, container images, multi-stage builds, layer caching, or image security.
Use when: writing or reviewing Infrastructure as Code for naming, state management, modularity, and drift detection.
Use when: reviewing DevOps changes for pipeline safety, secret hygiene, permissions, rollback, and deployment risk.
| name | shapeupReview |
| description | Use when: auditing a Shape Up pitch for completeness, reviewing in-cycle scope discipline, or validating that a betting table decision meets Shape Up principles. |
| type | reference |
| version | 1.0 |
| license | MIT |
Skill metadata: version "1.0"; tags [shapeup, review, pitch-review]; recommended tools [].
Shape Up review checks whether work follows the core Shape Up disciplines: bounded appetite, identified rabbit holes, explicit no-gos, and scope hammering during cycles.
shapeupPitchingshapeupBettingThese issues must be resolved before a pitch is eligible for the betting table.
| Check | Fail condition |
|---|---|
| Problem clarity | The problem section describes a solution, not a problem. |
| Appetite present | No appetite stated, or appetite is a range ("4-8 weeks"). |
| Solution present | No sketch, breadboard, or prose sketch of the approach. |
| Rabbit holes absent | No rabbit holes listed and no explicit statement that none were found. |
| No-gos absent | No no-gos listed and scope appears unbounded. |
These issues reduce confidence in the bet.
| Check | Warning condition |
|---|---|
| Scope vs. appetite | The described solution seems to exceed the stated appetite. |
| Rabbit hole mitigations | A rabbit hole is named but no mitigation is described. |
| No-go completeness | No-gos listed are vague ("we won't over-engineer it"). |
Suggestions for pitch quality improvements.
| Check | Advisory condition |
|---|---|
| Problem grounding | Problem is stated abstractly without a concrete example. |
| Sketch clarity | Fat-marker sketch is absent when prose is ambiguous. |
| Audience fit | Pitch assumes technical context the betting table may not have. |
When reviewing work in progress during a cycle:
When reviewing a betting table outcome:
Use these prefixes when giving review feedback:
problem: — problem statement issueappetite: — appetite missing, vague, or inconsistentscope: — scope exceeds appetite or grows without hammeringrabbit-hole: — unaddressed rabbit hole or missing mitigationno-go: — missing or vague no-gocarry-over: — work carried over without a fresh betnit: — minor style or completeness issue