Is It Out of Scope? — Web design
Is adding a chatbot widget out of scope for a web design project?
Usually a small styling task, not the integration itself — most chatbot tools are drop-in scripts, so the design-only part of the ask is genuinely minor, but the setup/configuration around it isn't.
The client asks for a chatbot widget — usually a third-party tool (Intercom, Drift, a simple FAQ bot) that drops in as a script embed. From a pure design standpoint, this really is small: match the widget's color to the brand, maybe adjust its position. But "add the chatbot" often implicitly includes account setup, configuring canned responses or a knowledge base, and testing the widget's behavior — none of which is design work, even though it arrived at the design team's desk.
Is it out of scope?
The styling piece is genuinely small and reasonable to just do. The account setup and configuration piece is outside a design engagement's scope — worth splitting the request into those two parts explicitly rather than either declining the whole thing or quietly doing the setup work for free.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Deliverables clause→ — Distinguishes visual/styling work (in scope) from third-party tool setup and configuration (not part of a design deliverables list).
Example contract wording
Example contract wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Happy to style the chatbot widget to match the brand — that's a quick one. Setting up the [tool] account, configuring responses, and connecting it to whatever you want it wired to is outside the design scope; let me know if you'd like us to quote that piece separately or if your team's handling it.
How MarginFlow flags it
MarginFlow keeps this one nuanced: the styling component may classify inside_scope while the setup/configuration component in the same email classifies outside_scope, with the explanation naming the split explicitly — a case where the useful output isn't a single classification but a clear line drawn within one request.