shapeupreview

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

Shape Up — Review

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.

When to use

• Auditing a pitch for completeness
• Reviewing in-cycle scope discipline or validating that a betting table decision meets Shape Up principles

When NOT to use

• When writing a new pitch from scratch — prefer shapeupPitching
• When actively running a betting table — prefer shapeupBetting

Pitch Review

Tier 1 — Blocking

These 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.

Tier 2 — Warning

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").

Tier 3 — Advisory

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.

In-Cycle Scope Review

When reviewing work in progress during a cycle:

• Flag tasks added after cycle start that are not in the original pitch scope.
• Flag scope that has grown without an explicit scope-hammering decision.
• Flag tasks stuck on the uphill side of the hill chart mid-cycle.
• Flag any "we'll handle that in cooldown" plans — cooldown is not overflow.

Betting Table Review

When reviewing a betting table outcome:

• Every bet has a complete pitch (not an idea or backlog item)
• Every bet has a named team with no team assigned to more than one bet
• No carry-over bets from the previous cycle without a fresh bet
• Every bet has a stated appetite that fits the cycle length

Comment Prefixes

Use these prefixes when giving review feedback:

• problem: — problem statement issue
• appetite: — appetite missing, vague, or inconsistent
• scope: — scope exceeds appetite or grows without hammering
• rabbit-hole: — unaddressed rabbit hole or missing mitigation
• no-go: — missing or vague no-go
• carry-over: — work carried over without a fresh bet
• nit: — minor style or completeness issue

Verify

• All review tiers run; blocking issues reported before non-blocking
• Output uses prescribed verdict format