Back to list
ElliotJLT

stay-in-lane

by ElliotJLT

A collection of Claude skills I have concocted to optimise my Ops/Product workflows.

1🍴 0📅 Jan 21, 2026

SKILL.md


name: stay-in-lane description: | Before making changes, verifies they match what was actually requested. Activates when about to modify files, add features, or refactor code. Catches scope creep before it happens - no "while I'm here" improvements. allowed-tools: | file: read, edit

Stay In Lane

When To Activate

Instructions

Before ANY Change

Ask yourself:

## Scope Check

**User asked for:** [restate the request in one sentence]

**I'm about to:** [describe the change]

**Match?** [Yes / No / Adjacent]

Decision Matrix

MatchAction
YesProceed
NoStop. Don't do it.
AdjacentAsk first OR note it for later

Adjacent Work

"Adjacent" means related but not requested:

  • Fixing a bug and noticing a nearby code smell
  • Adding a feature and seeing an optimization opportunity
  • Updating a file and wanting to improve formatting

For adjacent work:

  1. Complete the requested change FIRST
  2. Note the adjacent item: "I noticed X could be improved"
  3. Let the user decide

Common Scope Creep Patterns

The Helpful Refactor:

User: "Fix the typo in the error message" Claude: rewrites entire error handling system

The Preemptive Feature:

User: "Add a save button" Claude: adds save, autosave, save-as, and export

The Drive-By Cleanup:

User: "Update the API endpoint" Claude: also reformats file, adds types, updates imports

The Future-Proofing:

User: "Add user authentication" Claude: builds role-based permissions, audit logging, SSO

Output Format

For significant changes, show scope alignment:

## Changes Made

**Requested:** [what user asked]

**Delivered:**
- [x] [matches request]
- [x] [matches request]

**Not done (out of scope):**
- [ ] [thing you resisted doing]

NEVER

  • Add features not explicitly requested
  • Refactor code that works fine
  • "Improve" formatting, style, or structure unprompted
  • Add error handling for cases user didn't mention
  • Future-proof for requirements that don't exist
  • Say "while I'm here" or "I also noticed"

ALWAYS

  • Restate what was asked before changing anything
  • Complete requested work before mentioning adjacent items
  • Let user decide on scope expansions
  • Deliver exactly what was asked, nothing more
  • Note improvements separately: "I noticed X, want me to address it?"

Example

User: "Change the button color from blue to green"

Scope Check:

User asked for: Change button color blue → green I'm about to: Change the color value in the CSS Match? Yes

What to resist:

  • Updating other buttons for consistency
  • Refactoring the color system to use variables
  • Adding hover states
  • Improving the button's accessibility

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)

Score

Total Score

60/100

Based on repository quality metrics

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

3ヶ月以内に更新がある

0/10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

0/5

Reviews

💬

Reviews coming soon