Workflow & Core Tools · iart-ai/freelance-motion-skills
client-revisions
This skill should be used when the user asks to "stop scope creep", "limit revision rounds", "write SOW revision language", "the client keeps asking for changes", "how do I say this is out of scope", "translate vague feedback", "client said make it pop", or "write a change-order email". It provides revision-cap contract language, a consolidated-feedback request, a vague-feedback translator, and a polite out-of-scope email.
L1 Basic · Source registration onlyV1 Commit-PinnedDual-pass Audit
Control levels describe skill capabilities and suggested control measures; they do not represent quality or safety certifications, nor do they dictate usability. Usage decisions rest entirely with users and administrators. Different agent hosts apply varying constraints; do not assume hosts provide automatic protection. Third-party skill copyrights belong to their original authors. Use at your own risk.
1How It Works & Mechanism
The entire skill converges on a single criterion: classify each piece of feedback first as a revision, a new request, or simply vague, without touching project files prior to classification.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
The whole skill is one judgment applied per note: *is this a revision, a new request, or just vague?* Run each note through this before opening the project.
What is happening here: Pinpointing the root cause of 'runaway revisions' to a lack of classification—most disputes stem not from client greed, but from the fact that no one defined 'what counts as an in-scope revision' upfront.
The core distinction is codified into a contract-ready definition (revision = adjustment within an approved brief/board; new request = anything outside it).
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
- **A revision** = a change to something that was already in the approved brief/board (adjusting timing, colour from the palette, swapping an approved word, fixing a glitch).
What is happening here: Transforming the distinction between 'revision vs. new request' from a verbal understanding into a written definition; the decision tree unpacks this criterion into a self-check question: 'Has this already been decided and approved?'
Provides ready-to-paste SOW clause snippets: specify revision rounds, define 'one round = one consolidated feedback document', and list included/excluded items.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
This project includes [2] rounds of revisions. A "round" is one consolidated set of feedback, collected from all stakeholders and delivered in a single document, then addressed in full.
What is happening here: Defining a 'round' as an actionable object (a single document, all stakeholders aligned, comprehensive response), thereby closing the common loophole where 'feedback trickled across multiple messages counts as multiple rounds.'
The first step of the workflow is 'Stop': do not open project files initially, avoiding immediate work on feedback whose meaning is still ambiguous.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
1. **Stop.** Do not open the project file yet.
What is happening here: Inverting the default impulse of 'edit first, ask later'; subsequent steps proceed sequentially through consolidation, classification, translation, issuing change orders for new additions, and logging revision rounds.
Feedback must be consolidated first: require the client to resolve internal conflicts before submitting a single document (complete with timecodes, must-have tags, and focusing on problems rather than solutions).
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
• Tell me the problem, not the fix — "the intro drags" is more useful than "make it faster," because it lets me solve it properly.
What is happening here: Shifting 'multiple people providing disjointed feedback' into 'internal alignment on the client side'; 'focusing on problems rather than solutions' preserves creative judgment, while timecodes eliminate back-and-forth clarification.
A translation table is provided for vague feedback: each subjective adjective is converted into a set of bounded choices along with a request for specific timecodes.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
| "Make it pop" | "More saturated colour, faster pacing, bigger scale moves, or stronger sound? Point to a second that already pops." |
What is happening here: Employs the same bounded-choice methodology as creative-brief, used here to turn 'it doesn't feel right' into actionable, determinable revision items before editing begins.
New requests follow a change-order process: provide the impact on effort, cost, and timeline, giving the client a choice to 'proceed or hold', framed cooperatively rather than as an outright rejection.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
Tone notes: collaborative, never accusatory. Offer the choice (proceed or park), give a number, and state the timeline impact. The goal is to make the trade-off visible, not to say "no."
What is happening here: Maintaining boundaries without damaging relationships—the core action is making the trade-offs visible rather than simply saying no; counter-examples (such as silently building square cut-downs and custom outros) are used to quantify losses.
Wrap up with round visibility and approval gates: log round numbers for each iteration, and treat reopening any phase that was formally signed off in writing as brand-new work.
skills/client-revisions/SKILL.md
| Reworking an approved scene | Approval gate not locked | Lock each stage in writing; reopening a locked stage = new request |
What is happening here: Eliminating the structural causes of 'infinite revisions' (lack of lock-in points and round tracking) through two specific actions; the accompanying reference includes email templates for extra rounds and stalled approvals.
2Core Capabilities
01Classification decision tree: determine whether each feedback item is a revision, a new request, or vague feedback requiring translation
02SOW revision clauses (round count, definition of 'one round', included/excluded scopes, out-of-scope billing at day rate)
03Consolidated feedback request template (all stakeholders aligned, single document, timecodes, must-haves, internal conflict resolution by client)
04Vague feedback translation matrix (8 common ambiguous phrases → bounded clarifying questions + timecode requests)
05Change-order email templates (effort/cost/timeline impact + binary choice: approve addition or maintain original scope)
06Round tracking and approval gate lock-in (prevents feedback drip and reopening previously approved milestones)
07Negative-case analysis: the true cost of silently absorbing scope creep (two extra days, project losses, conditioning clients to expect free revisions)
08Quick reference guide and pre-delivery self-check (7-row situational playbook + 8-item checklist)
4Recommended Governance & Evidence
Suggested Controls for Safe Operation
For Agent Runtime
Can be auto-loaded
For Administrators
Register source and version
Evidence & Triggers (File Paths & Excerpts)
- SKILL.md: Pure prompt instructions and rule text; executes no scripts and causes no external side effects
Audit Notes: Pure prompt/text templates: contains no executable scripts, initiates no network calls, reads no credentials, and performs no disk writes; outputs are email copy and SOW contract clauses. Notes (do not alter tier): 1) Outputs are intended for real commercial communications and contracts; placeholders such as [2] rounds, [day rate], and [amount] must be customized and localized by the user according to their context. 2) The legal enforceability of clauses depends on jurisdiction and overall contract terms; this document does not constitute formal legal advice.
5Second-Pass Verification
- [ok] 是否存在脚本、命令或联网动作 — 全目录仅 Markdown；代码块只有邮件与合同文本模板，无 shell/JS 可执行语句，无 npx/curl/fetch/URL（除署名页脚）。
- [ok] 「一轮 = 一份合并反馈」的定义前后是否一致 — SOW 条款块、合并反馈模板（subject 里的 Round [N]）与常见错误表三处口径一致，无自相矛盾。
- [ok] 变更单模板是否真的给「继续或搁置」两个出口（基调是否与声明一致） — 邮件模板结尾明写 If you'd rather keep to the original scope and budget, no problem — we'll proceed as planned and can revisit this later.，与 Tone notes 的「不说不」一致。
- [unlocatable] 条款的法律效力/适用性是否可在源码内确认 — SOW 条款以英文通用表述给出，未标司法辖区、未附法律依据；文档自称可 drop into the contract，但效力取决于整体合同与当地法律，本次侦查无法也无意核验。
6Verdict & Scenarios
Best for: Ideal for freelancers and boutique studios: when client feedback starts piling up, clients keep adding small requests, the SOW needs clear revision terms, vague notes like 'make it pop' must be translated before work begins, or a request clearly exceeds scope and requires a polite change-order email. Also ideal prior to project kickoff to establish revision caps and define 'one round' in the contract.
Not for: Not suitable for: 1) Formal legal counsel or statutory contract drafting (these are commercial communication templates); 2) One-off small gigs with crystal-clear specs and no revision friction—procedural overhead outweighs the benefits; 3) Creative direction decisions (refer to creative-brief or motion-art-direction instead); 4) Client CRM or email automation (the skill does not integrate with external client systems).
Install Agent-Ready
① Verified Mirror 2026-09-28
Option A · Direct DownloadDownload client-revisions.tar.gz
sha256:
Option B · Copy Guide for Agente26d799916086272…Agents automatically download and verify mirrors from this JSON guide.
② Upstream GitHub
GitHub Repo ↗
Pinned to commit d85c2b4846.