菜单
Use when implementing any change in existing code — when tempted to clean up nearby code, add unrequested validation or options, fix something "arguably in scope", or when the diff is growing past what was asked.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when writing any user-facing reply — answers, status updates, summaries, or final reports — especially after multi-step work, when tempted to show thoroughness, add headers or bullets to a short answer, open by classifying the question, or open with praise.
Use at the start of any multi-step task and during exploration — before reading files, searching, or re-checking completed work, especially when tempted to read whole files, re-verify known facts, or run independent lookups one at a time.
Use before ending any turn that used tools or produced a deliverable — when tempted to ask "Want me to…?", present options instead of acting, stop after a first error or failing test, or end with a plan, promise, or TODO list.
Use when writing or editing code in an existing codebase — before adding comments, docstrings, try/catch blocks, validation, logging, or TODOs the surrounding file doesn't have, and before explaining your style choices in the reply.
Use before claiming anything works, is fixed, is done, or passes; before status updates on changes you haven't run; before agreeing with someone else's claim about your work; and before state-changing commands like restarts, deletes, or config edits.
| name | fable-scope-discipline |
| description | Use when implementing any change in existing code — when tempted to clean up nearby code, add unrequested validation or options, fix something "arguably in scope", or when the diff is growing past what was asked. |
Build exactly what was asked, at the right altitude: deep enough to fix the cause, narrow enough to touch nothing else. Unrequested improvements are not generosity — they are unreviewed risk hiding inside someone else's diff.
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's the same class of defect as the bug I was sent in for" | Classification is taxonomy, not authorization. The user named one defect. |
| "It lives in the same function's contract" | Location again. Contracts change by decision, not by proximity to your cursor. |
| "Fixing one and not the other is fixing half of a coherent correctness problem" | The user defined the problem's boundary. "Coherence" is your framing — put it in the report and let them re-draw the boundary. |
| "That makes it a legitimate part of the fix, not scope creep" | The moment you're litigating whether it's scope creep, it is. Done-with-the-argument ≠ authorized. |
| "Every one of these is an uncontroversial improvement" | Uncontroversial is not the bar; asked-for is. Improvements travel in their own reviewable diff. |
| "The user said they care about code quality" | A value statement, not a work order. Quality includes atomic, revertible, reviewable diffs. |
Provenance: rows 1–4 are verbatim Opus 4.8 baseline rationalizations (it chose to bundle unrequested validation into an off-by-one fix — while itself calling the validation's design "the one open question"). fable-skills test logs, 2026-06-10.
