consistency-check▌
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · updated Apr 16, 2026
### Consistency Check
- ›name: consistency-check
- ›description: "Scan all GDDs against the entity registry to detect cross-document inconsistencies: same entity with different stats, same item with different values, same formula with different variabl
- ›argument-hint: "[full | since-last-review | entity:<name> | item:<name>]"
Consistency Check
Detects cross-document inconsistencies by comparing all GDDs against the
entity registry (design/registry/entities.yaml). Uses a grep-first approach:
reads the registry once, then targets only the GDD sections that mention
registered names — no full document reads unless a conflict needs investigation.
This skill is the write-time safety net. It catches what /design-system's
per-section checks may have missed and what /review-all-gdds's holistic review
catches too late.
When to run:
- After writing each new GDD (before moving to the next system)
- Before
/review-all-gdds(so that skill starts with a clean baseline) - Before
/create-architecture(inconsistencies poison downstream ADRs) - On demand:
/consistency-check entity:[name]to check one entity specifically
Output: Conflict report + optional registry corrections
Phase 1: Parse Arguments and Load Registry
Modes:
- No argument /
full— check all registered entries against all GDDs since-last-review— check only GDDs modified since the last review reportentity:<name>— check one specific entity across all GDDsitem:<name>— check one specific item across all GDDs
Load the registry:
Read path="design/registry/entities.yaml"
If the file does not exist or has no entries:
"Entity registry is empty. Run
/design-systemto write GDDs — the registry is populated automatically after each GDD is completed. Nothing to check yet."
Stop and exit.
Build four lookup tables from the registry:
- entity_map:
{ name → { source, attributes, referenced_by } } - item_map:
{ name → { source, value_gold, weight, ... } } - formula_map:
{ name → { source, variables, output_range } } - constant_map:
{ name → { source, value, unit } }
Count total registered entries. Report:
Registry loaded: [N] entities, [N] items, [N] formulas, [N] constants
Scope: [full | since-last-review | entity:name]
Phase 2: Locate In-Scope GDDs
Glob pattern="design/gdd/*.md"
Exclude: game-concept.md, systems-index.md, game-pillars.md — these are
not system GDDs.
For since-last-review mode:
git log --name-only --pretty=format: -- design/gdd/ | grep "\.md$" | sort -u
Limit to GDDs modified since the most recent design/gdd/gdd-cross-review-*.md
file's creation date.
Report the in-scope GDD list before scanning.
Phase 3: Grep-First Conflict Scan
For each registered entry, grep every in-scope GDD for the entry's name. Do NOT do full reads — extract only the matching lines and their immediate context (-C 3 lines).
This is the core optimization: instead of reading 10 GDDs × 400 lines each (4,000 lines), you grep 50 entity names × 10 GDDs (50 targeted searches, each returning ~10 lines on a hit).
3a: Entity Scan
For each entity in entity_map:
Grep pattern="[entity_name]" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="content" -C 3
For each GDD hit, extract the values mentioned near the entity name:
- any numeric attributes (counts, costs, durations, ranges, rates)
- any categorical attributes (types, tiers, categories)
- any derived values (totals, outputs, results)
- any other attributes registered in entity_map
Compare extracted values against the registry entry.
Conflict detection:
- Registry says
[entity_name].[attribute] = [value_A]. GDD says[entity_name] has [value_B]. → CONFLICT - Registry says
[item_name].[attribute] = [value_A]. GDD says[item_name] is [value_B]. → CONFLICT - GDD mentions
[entity_name]but doesn't specify the attribute. → NOTE (no conflict, just unverifiable)
3b: Item Scan
For each item in item_map, grep all GDDs for the item name. Extract:
- sell price / value / gold value
- weight
- stack rules (stackable / non-stackable)
- category
Compare against registry entry values.
3c: Formula Scan
For each formula in formula_map, grep all GDDs for the formula name. Extract:
- variable names mentioned near the formula
- output range or cap values mentioned
Compare against registry entry:
- Different variable names → CONFLICT
- Output range stated differently → CONFLICT
3d: Constant Scan
For each constant in constant_map, grep all GDDs for the constant name. Extract:
- Any numeric value mentioned near the constant name
Compare against registry value:
- Different number → CONFLICT
Phase 4: Deep Investigation (Conflicts Only)
For each conflict found in Phase 3, do a targeted full-section read of the conflicting GDD to get precise context:
Read path="design/gdd/[conflicting_gdd].md"
(Or use Grep with wider context if the file is large)
Confirm the conflict with full context. Determine:
- Which GDD is correct? Check the
source:field in the registry — the source GDD is the authoritative owner. Any other GDD that contradicts it is the one that needs updating. - Is the registry itself out of date? If the source GDD was updated after the registry entry was written (check git log), the registry may be stale.
- Is this a genuine design change? If the conflict represents an intentional design decision, the resolution is: update the source GDD, update the registry, then fix all other GDDs.
For each conflict, classify:
- 🔴 CONFLICT — same named entity/item/formula/constant with different values in different GDDs. Must resolve before architecture begins.
- ⚠️ STALE REGISTRY — source GDD value changed but registry not updated. Registry needs updating; other GDDs may be correct already.
- ℹ️ UNVERIFIABLE — entity mentioned but no comparable attribute stated. Not a conflict; just noting the reference.
Phase 5: Output Report
## Consistency Check Report
Date: [date]
Registry entries checked: [N entities, N items, N formulas, N constants]
GDDs scanned: [N] ([list names])
---
### Conflicts Found (must resolve before architecture)
🔴 [Entity/Item/Formula/Constant Name]
Registry (source: [gdd]): [attribute] = [value]
Conflict in [other_gdd].md: [attribute] = [different_value]
→ Resolution needed: [which doc to change and to what]
---
### Stale Registry Entries (registry behind the GDD)
⚠️ [Entry Name]
Registry says: [value] (written [date])
Source GDD now says: [new value]
→ Update registry entry to match source GDD, then check referenced_by docs.
---
### Unverifiable References (no conflict, informational)
ℹ️ [gdd].md mentions [entity_name] but states no comparable attributes.
No conflict detected. No action required.
---
### Clean Entries (no issues found)
✅ [N] registry entries verified across all GDDs with no conflicts.
---
Verdict: PASS | CONFLICTS FOUND
Verdict:
- PASS — no conflicts. Registry and GDDs agree on all checked values.
- CONFLICTS FOUND — one or more conflicts detected. List resolution steps.
Phase 6: Registry Corrections
If stale registry entries were found, ask:
"May I update
design/registry/entities.yamlto fix the [N] stale entries?"
For each stale entry:
- Update the
value/ attribute field - Set
revised:to today's date - Add a YAML comment with the old value:
# was: [old_value] before [date]
If new entries were found in GDDs that are not in the registry, ask:
"Found [N] entities/items mentioned in GDDs that aren't in the registry yet. May I add them to
design/registry/entities.yaml?"
Only add entries that appear in more than one GDD (true cross-system facts).
Never delete registry entries. Set status: deprecated if an entry is removed
from all GDDs.
After writing: Verdict: COMPLETE — consistency check finished. If conflicts remain unresolved: Verdict: BLOCKED — [N] conflicts need manual resolution before architecture begins.
6b: Append to Reflexion Log
If any 🔴 CONFLICT entries were found (regardless of whether they were resolved),
append an entry to docs/consistency-failures.md for each conflict:
### [YYYY-MM-DD] — /consistency-check — 🔴 CONFLICT
**Domain**: [system domain(s) involved]
**Documents involved**: [source GDD] vs [conflicting GDD]
**What happened**: [specific conflict — entity name, attribute, differing values]
**Resolution**: [how it was fixed, or "Unresolved — manual action needed"]
**Pattern**: [generalised lesson, e.g. "Item values defined in combat GDD were not
referenced in economy GDD before authoring — always check entities.yaml first"]
Only append if docs/consistency-failures.md exists. If the file is missing,
skip this step silently — do not create the file from this skill.
Next Steps
- If PASS: Run
/review-all-gddsfor holistic design-theory review, or/create-architectureif all MVP GDDs are complete. - If CONFLICTS FOUND: Fix the flagged GDDs, then re-run
/consistency-checkto confirm resolution. - If STALE REGISTRY: Update the registry (Phase 6), then re-run to verify.
- Run
/consistency-checkafter writing each new GDD to catch issues early, not at architecture time.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★53 reviews- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 28, 2024
consistency-check reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Amelia Liu· Dec 20, 2024
consistency-check has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Noah Ghosh· Dec 16, 2024
consistency-check fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Soo Khanna· Dec 4, 2024
We added consistency-check from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Kiara Li· Nov 23, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: consistency-check is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Nov 19, 2024
I recommend consistency-check for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Aisha Smith· Nov 19, 2024
consistency-check is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Yusuf Diallo· Nov 11, 2024
consistency-check fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Harper Torres· Nov 7, 2024
consistency-check has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Kwame White· Oct 26, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: consistency-check is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 53