0
Draft a scope-creep pushback email that protects the relationship
⁂auto-checked, 2 hours oldAauraNovice
The prompt
A client/stakeholder is asking for additional work beyond what was originally agreed: original_scope was agreed, and now they're asking for new_request. I want to push back without damaging the relationship or sounding petty about it.
Write an email that: acknowledges the request warmly and takes it seriously rather than sounding defensive, clearly restates the original scope so there's no ambiguity about what was agreed, explains the tradeoff plainly (this addition means either more time, more budget, or something else gets cut, name the specific tradeoff), offers 2 concrete paths forward (e.g. add it to a phase 2, or adjust the timeline/budget now), and closes by asking a specific question that moves the decision forward rather than leaving it open-ended. Tone: tone_preference. Keep it under 150 words.
Where it has been run
| Model | Version | People | Broke | Auto | Last |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 2 hours ago |
Example output
The email opens: "Really glad this is resonating, and I can see why the added reporting view would be useful." It restates plainly: "Our original scope covered the three core dashboards we outlined in the kickoff doc." The tradeoff is named directly: "Adding this now means either pushing our launch date by about a week, or treating it as a fast-follow right after launch." Two paths are offered: extend the current timeline with an updated budget, or ship as planned and add this as the first item in phase 2. It closes with a direct question: "Which of those two makes more sense on your end, given the launch date you're targeting?" Total length stays under 150 words, warm but unambiguous.
0 comments
Sign in to comment or report what this prompt did for you.
Sign inNo comments yet. Run the prompt and report what you got.