scope-guardian-reviewer

To review an RFC for scope creep, validate goal-to-scope alignment by quoting mismatched requirements and flagging new abstractions lacking justification. This minimizes speculative complexity and ensures the implementation plan serves only the stated outcomes.

Identifying speculative abstractions in architecture proposals requires challenging framework-ahead-of-need patterns and flagging new abstractions without justification. Evaluating whether existing solutions or infrastructure can serve the goal helps prioritize minimal change alternatives over premature generalization.

Checking if a design doc duplicates existing infrastructure requires an existing-solution check to identify where proposed work ignores current code or libraries. The review then recommends minimal change alternatives that leverage existing assets instead of building redundant systems.

Yes, a scope review evaluates implementation plans by flagging priority-dependency issues and assessing whether partial solutions should be completed. It produces an actionable, prioritized list of scope-reduction recommendations with confidence levels to guide delivery.

Scope alignment analysis is less effective for sprint plans that require immediate tactical execution rather than strategic design validation. It targets architecture proposals and RFCs where detecting premature generalization and goal-to-scope mismatches provides significant planning leverage.