!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,system_overrides

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

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

workflow (see .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md), applied per GDD at its effective tier — the system_overrides row for that GDD's system (its filename stem) when the block lists one, else the project value:

• full — full entity-registry cross-check against all GDD sections.
• standard — cross-check against the required sections only. The report's Scope line says so, and each value stated for a registered name outside those sections is listed as not checked at this tier (Phase 3 applies this).
• minimal — not meaningful (no GDDs to check).

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 report
• entity:<name> — check one specific entity across all GDDs
• item:<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-system to write GDDs — the registry is populated automatically after each GDD is completed. Nothing to check yet."

Verdict: NOT ASSESSED — entity registry empty. Stop: nothing was compared, so there is no PASS to give and nothing to write.

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]

For entity:<name> or item:<name>, if the registry has no entry by that name the verdict is NOT ASSESSED — <name> is not in the registry: list the closest registered names and stop. Checking an unregistered name compares nothing, and that is not a PASS.

Phase 2: Locate In-Scope GDDs

Glob pattern="design/gdd/*.md"

Exclude the docs that live in design/gdd/ but are not system GDDs: game-concept.md, systems-index.md, game-pillars.md, gameplay-tags.md, entity-registry.md, fixture-swap-ledger.md, sound-bible.md and any gdd-cross-review-*.md (the report /review-all-gdds writes here).

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. If the list is empty — no system GDDs exist, or since-last-review found none changed — the verdict is NOT ASSESSED — no GDDs in scope: say which filter produced zero, and stop. A scan of nothing finds no conflicts, and that is not a PASS.

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).

In a GDD whose effective tier is standard, compare only hits under a required section. The effective tier is per GDD: system_overrides.<stem> replaces the project tier for that GDD in either direction (a full row makes every section compared). Grep each such GDD once for ^## to get its headings and line numbers, and file every name hit under the nearest heading above it: only hits under Overview, Detailed Rules / Detailed Design, Formulas, Edge Cases, Dependencies or Acceptance Criteria are compared — plus Tuning Knobs when project.yaml sets workflow_overrides.tuning_knobs: true (read that flag once; it only ever adds the section). Any other hit (Tuning Knobs without the flag, Player Fantasy, any other section) raises no finding and is not logged; list each one that states a value (name, GDD, section) on the report's Not checked at this tier line.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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])
Scope: [all GDD sections | required sections only — workflow: standard | per GDD — name each GDD whose effective tier differs, and its tier]
Not checked at this tier: [each value stated outside the required sections (name, GDD, section) — or "none"; omit when every GDD is at `full`]

---

### 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 | NOT ASSESSED

Verdict:

• CONFLICTS FOUND — one or more conflicts detected. List resolution steps.
• NOT ASSESSED — nothing was compared: the entity registry is empty or the named entity is not in it (Phase 1), or no GDDs were in scope (Phase 2). Say which.
• PASS — no conflicts. Registry and GDDs agree on all checked values, across at least one GDD.

Phase 6: Registry Corrections

If stale registry entries were found, ask:

"May I update design/registry/entities.yaml to 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), ask: "May I append [N] entries to docs/consistency-failures.md (creating it if absent)?" On yes, append an entry for each conflict; on no, say the conflicts were not logged.

### [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"]

If docs/consistency-failures.md does not exist, create it with this header before appending:

# Consistency Failure Log

<!-- Auto-maintained by /consistency-check. Do not edit manually. -->
<!-- One entry per detected conflict, in chronological order. -->

| Date | GDD A | GDD B | Conflict Type | Status |
|------|-------|-------|---------------|--------|

Then append the new conflict entries. Never skip logging on your own — a missing file is not a reason to lose conflict history; only the user's "no" is.

Phase 7: Session State and Closing

Silently append to production/session-state/active.md (create the file if it does not exist):

<!-- CONSISTENCY-CHECK: [date] | GDDs checked: [N] | Conflicts found: [N] | Log: docs/consistency-failures.md -->

Point at docs/consistency-failures.md — the file Phase 6 actually appends to. A breadcrumb is a pointer left for a future session to follow. One that names a file nothing writes sends that session looking for conflict history it will never find, and nothing errors along the way. Never invent a report filename here.

Then close with an AskUserQuestion widget:

• Prompt: "Consistency check complete — [N] conflicts found. What next?"
• Options:
  • [A] Fix the highest-priority conflict now
  • [B] Run /design-review on the most conflicted GDD
  • [C] Stop here

In collaborative and guided modes, never end the skill with plain text — always close with this widget. In autonomous mode, print the findings and recommended next step, then record via log_decision (no widget).

Recovery / Reference

• If PASS: Run /review-all-gdds for holistic design-theory review, or /create-architecture if all MVP GDDs are complete.
• If CONFLICTS FOUND: Fix the flagged GDDs, then re-run /consistency-check to confirm resolution.
• If STALE REGISTRY: Update the registry (Phase 6), then re-run to verify.
• Run /consistency-check after writing each new GDD to catch issues early, not at architecture time.