Magnus Hedemark
673335d21a
New class-level methodology skill adapted from Ryan Singer's Shape Up (Basecamp, 2019), extended for human+AI-agent build teams: - SKILL.md: core loop (shape -> bet -> build -> move on) with entry-point routing and negative trigger boundaries - 6 references: principles, shaping (incl. non-UI work), betting, building, hybrid-adaptation, anti-patterns (independent field record 2019-2026) - 2 templates: PITCH.md (five ingredients), SCOPE_MAP.md (hill states) - evals: 6 output-quality cases incl. hybrid and routing regression cases Routing surfaces: catalog README entry, skill-triggers index row, product-methodology seam (consume won bets; no pre-bet shredding). Generated artifacts regenerated against current main. Closes #387
2.9 KiB
Scope Map:
Scopes are integrated slices of a project — bigger than tasks, small enough to finish in days — that can be completed independently. They are discovered by doing real work, not planned up front. Expect the first reliable map around the end of week one; expect early shuffling. Redrawing lines as you learn the territory is the technique working, not failing.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Pitch | |
| Team | |
| Time box | |
| Map last updated |
Hill states
Each scope sits at one of four points. Move honestly — a dot that doesn't move is how stuck work raises its hand without anyone having to say "I'm stuck."
| State | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Figuring out | Approach unclear; unknowns dominate; nothing validated yet |
| Validated | Approach chosen and proven feasible on the hard part — de-risked, not finished |
| Known | All unknowns resolved; only execution remains (all downhill) |
| Done | Integrated end-to-end; must-haves complete; demoable |
Sequencing rule: push the scariest scopes uphill first. Get novel, risky work to Validated early and leave routine polish for the end.
Scope table
| # | Scope | Must-haves | Nice-to-haves (~) |
Hill state | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <named by project language, e.g. "Invite clients"> | ~ |
Figuring out | <interdependencies, blockers> | |
| 2 | |||||
| 3 |
Is the map right? Check the three health signals:
- You can see the whole project — nothing worrying hides in the details
- Conversations flow because scope names are the project's real language
- New discovered tasks have an obvious bucket to land in
And the three redraw signals:
- You can't say how "done" a scope is → its tasks are unrelated; factor something out
- The name would fit any project ("front-end", "bugs", "misc") → junk drawer; integrate
- It's too big to finish soon → split until victories arrive every few days
Chowder
Loose tasks that fit nowhere yet. Honest holding pen, not a junk drawer — if it grows past three to five items, there is a scope waiting to be drawn.
Nice-to-have discipline
Any task marked ~ is cut automatically if the box closes in. Marking the tilde IS the
scope-hammering act: the team decides, in the moment of discovery, what the fixed time
box can afford. Usually nice-to-haves never get built, and that is the system working.
Circuit breaker check
Before asking for more time, verify both conditions — and even then prefer shipping:
- Every remaining item survived genuine hammering as a true must-have
- All outstanding work is downhill (no open questions anywhere)
If either box is unchecked, the honest move is to stop, let the breaker trip, and take the hole in the concept back to shaping.