scope

name	scope
description	Review the bead or caller intent write scope for completeness and ambiguity. Triggers: "review write scope", "check scope boundaries", "scope this change".
practices	["ddd-bounded-context","design-by-contract"]
hexagonal_role	supporting
consumes	["proposed-write-scope"]
produces	["scope-review"]
context_rel	[{"kind":"supplier-to","with":"plan"}]
skill_api_version	1
context	{"window":"isolated","intent":{"mode":"none"},"sections":{"exclude":["HISTORY","INTEL","TASK"]},"intel_scope":"none"}
metadata	{"capabilities":["scope_review"],"effects":[],"canonical_status":"canonical","disposition":"keep_specialist","tier":"meta","dependencies":[]}
output_contract	response: proposed write_scope.include/exclude plus gaps and ambiguities

Scope — Review a proposed write scope

Review the write scope in the existing bead or caller intent. This skill is advisory: it does not create a second planning artifact, write a lock, install a hook, block an edit, or claim paths.

Inputs

• One active behavior and its acceptance scenarios.
• Proposed include and exclude patterns.
• Known generated companions and fixture/projection paths.
• Explicit non-goals.

Procedure

1. Map each acceptance criterion to the smallest source paths that may change.
2. Add owned generated companions that must move with those sources.
3. Check whether any include/exclude patterns overlap or are too broad to prove.
4. Identify likely paths the proposal omitted.
5. Return a corrected proposal and the reasons for each change, then stop.

The caller decides whether to adopt the proposal in the original intent source, and Validate independently compares runtime-derived changed paths with that scope.

Axiom-kernel framing

Derive the scope from axioms, not enumeration instinct. State the small set of facts the acceptance makes true — "behavior X lives in root A", "projection B is generated from A", "history under C is frozen" — and derive every include and exclude pattern from exactly one axiom. A pattern with no supporting axiom is unjustified breadth; an axiom with no pattern is a gap. Both go in the review output. Scopes assembled by listing directories that feel related are the vibes perimeter failure mode: they cannot be defended when Validate finds a path on the boundary, because nobody can say why the line is where it is. Stop condition: the review is complete when the axiom-to-pattern mapping has no unmapped members on either side.

Byte-verified recovery ceremony

When the review finds that protected paths were already touched — or the caller asks how a scope violation should be unwound — the advisory answer is a ceremony, not a hand-wave: identify the known-good source for each affected path (committed state, snapshot, or generated-from-source), restore, then verify byte-for-byte that restored content matches the known-good bytes (content hash comparison, not visual diff or "looks right"). Recovery declared on inspection alone is the eyeballed restore failure mode: a file that looks restored can still differ in bytes that matter. The ceremony's stop condition is a hash match for every affected path; any path with no known-good source to verify against is reported as unrecoverable-as-scoped, and the caller decides.

Output

write_scope:
  include: ["bounded/source/**"]
   []
 []
 []
 []