doc-consistency
Skill2 starsChanged 6 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Docs-health contradiction scan—docs that disagree with EACH OTHER: the same fact stated two ways in two places, terminology drift (one thing under several names, or one name for several things), copy-paste blocks that were updated in one home and not the other, and cross-LANGUAGE drift (a doc and its counterpart in another language no longer say the same thing). Catches CONTRADICTORY doc sets. Triggers on: "/doc-consistency", "doc-consistency", "docs contradict", "terminology drift", "are the translations in sync". A mechanical layer (~free) checks declared translation pairs (`translationPairs`); the three drift classes are semantic (paid, consent-gated—comparing meaning across files is judgment, not pattern-matching). Severity judged by context, never mechanical; CONFIRMED contradictions and SUSPECTED tensions reported separately.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AndrewBrown-USDA/aigb-skills-usdatheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
- dongsheng123132/doc-consistencytheir own version, first seen Aug 10, 2026
- MaximSTH/meta-layer-startertheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
- wukun2005-gif/ai-skillstheir own version, first seen May 10, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- AndrewBrown-USDA/aigb-skills-usda★ 7same name
- MaximSTH/meta-layer-starter★ 2same name
- wukun2005-gif/ai-skills★ 2same name
- dongsheng123132/doc-consistency★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- doc-groundingSkill
- doc-leakSkill
- doc-qualitySkill
- doc-rotSkill
- doc-standardSkill
- doc-structureSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 54
After any report in an interactive session you MUST present this menu via your question tool (skip only when findings are zero or no user …
- Distinctive: line 60
NEVER auto-fix: every consistency fix is a content decision (which side wins)—there are no "safe" automatic fixes in this canary.
- Very specific: line 66
If this canary misbehaves, OFFER to file it at <https://github.com/TheColliery/CoalLedger/issues> with a user-reviewed summary—never …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Doc-Consistency
Answer in the USER'S language; keep technical terms, commands, paths, and check ids verbatim.
Find places where the doc set disagrees with itself. Report CONFIRMED contradictions; park tensions in SUSPECTED.
Parameters
- SCOPE: a named doc set (default when given) | all docs touching a named topic | whole repo docs—
.md/.mdx/.markdown/.rst/.txt/.adoc/.asciidoc/.org(confirm first if > 20 files). - TIER: two layers. Mechanical (~free): declared translation pairs only (Method 2b). Semantic (Full, paid, always consent-gated): the three drift classes below. Two sentences can contradict with zero textual overlap, so they stay judgment, never pattern-matching.
What counts (three drift classes)
| class | looks like |
| fact drift | the same fact stated differently in two docs (a count, a default, a step order, a supported-platform claim) |
| terminology drift | one concept under several names, or one name reused for different concepts—including a doc set's own defined terms used off-definition |
| cross-language drift | a doc and its other-language counterpart diverging in meaning (a fact updated in one language only, a section present in one and absent in the other) |
Method
- Inventory: extract the facts and defined terms each in-scope doc asserts (skip opinions; technical terms stay verbatim—a term is only "drifted" when the CONCEPT diverges, not when prose around it varies).
- Cross-compare the inventory; pair up disagreements. For cross-language pairs, compare MEANING (a free translation is fine; a contradicting one is drift).
- 2b. Declared translation pairs (mechanical, ~free, SUSPECTED-only). Pairs come only from
translationPairs(.coalledger.json, global + project merge), which the engine reads itself: never copy a pair into a command. Empty (factory default[]): the engine reports nothing; never guess pairs from file names. The engine ships INSIDE this skill folder at./lib/. Substitute your context's skill base dir for<skill base dir>. Runcd "<skill base dir>" && node ./lib/translation-pairs.mjs --list-pathfirst, then write the run list with your file tool to the exact path it prints ({"root": "<absolute project folder>", "docs": []}), then run exactly:cd "<skill base dir>" && node ./lib/translation-pairs.mjs --json --list. Thecdis REQUIRED (./lib/resolves against the skill folder, never your project cwd). The run list'srootis the absolute project folder; pair sides are relative to it, forward slashes, no... No path goes on the command line; the engine reads the root from the run list as data.- Checks (all
SUSPECTED):pair-invalid(no=, an empty side, a backslash, an absolute path or a..segment; nothing is read) ·pair-source-missingandtranslation-missing(a side is not a plain file under the root: missing, or refused by the link rule) ·translation-older(the counterpart's last commit is before its source's) ·translation-undated(no git record: no git, not a repository, or untracked or never committed; it means undated, never older). - Dates are each file's last git committer date (
git log -1 --format=%cI), never mtime. --jsonprints{ "findings": [...] }. Exit 0 whenever the run completes, findings included; exit 2 on a usage error.- Which side is right stays out of this step (Escalation boundary).
- Checks (all
- 2b. Declared translation pairs (mechanical, ~free, SUSPECTED-only). Pairs come only from
- Which side is right is NOT this canary's call—report the pair and, where a source of truth is obvious, note it; resolving truth is doc-grounding's job (offer to run it on the pair).
- Severity by CONTEXT (never a fixed map), then honor
severityFloor: contradictory instructions readers may follow = HIGH-CRITICAL; contradictory descriptions = MEDIUM; naming inconsistency = LOW.scanEverything: truebypasses the floor this run—report everything down tolow—and say so: state thatseverityFloorwas bypassed, never that every scope cut was bypassed (this canary has none to bypass).
Escalation boundary
Adjudicating WHICH of two contradicting claims is true = doc-grounding (fetch/recompute) or, for the error-not-allowed slice, CoalBoard (/coalboard) if that skill is installed. This canary only surfaces the disagreement.
Grants & denials (CLASSIFY-BLOCK)
| class | step it powers | grant | on denial |
| read | inventory facts/terms across the doc set, incl. cross-language pairs | Read·Grep·Glob (·Bash·Write for the run list—the translation-pair engine runs via node ./lib/translation-pairs.mjs, Method 2b; Read/Grep/Glob cannot execute it) | refuse that file, report it unscanned—never a false clean bill |
| write | Align to a chosen side (after the user picks) | Write·Edit (·Bash—checkpoint via git stash/commit) | report + courier the intended change to the dispatcher; never claim applied |
A denial reaches the WORKER as a visible message and propagates NO further—not to the dispatcher, not as a catchable condition. Every row above states a branch or an explicit death; a step that dies says so in the output. Never report a denied step as done, skipped, or clean.
Output
| # | doc A (path:line) | doc B (path:line) | class | disagreement | severity |
CONFIRMED table only; SUSPECTED (a tension that may be intended, e.g. an archive vs a live doc) as a separate list.
Reporting: call ReportFindings when callable—the schema carries ONE file/line pair per finding, so file/line MUST be doc A's defect site; doc B's location is cited as path:line inside summary/failure_scenario, never a paraphrase—one contradiction is one finding, never split across two. An unresolvable line reports your best guess, named imprecise in the wrap-up, never dropped. Severity prefixed in summary (e.g. [HIGH] …) per the severity-by-context rule above, ranked most-severe first, SUSPECTED tensions as verdict: PLAUSIBLE; chat then carries only the wrap-up line (counts · SUSPECTED list · overflow past 32) + the fix menu, never a restatement. Not callable → the table above, unchanged. No safe-fix class exists here—every fix is a which-side-wins content decision, so an Apply-fixes click degrades to the Let-me-pick path below, never an auto-apply. After any fix round, re-report the same findings with outcome: fixed/skipped/no_change_needed.
Fix mode (choice-gated)
After any report in an interactive session you MUST present this menu via your question tool (skip only when findings are zero or no user is present). NEVER auto-fix a live doc.
- Align to a chosen side: the user picks which doc is right per finding; the other is edited to match, with a checkpoint first (git stash/commit in a git repo; else copy the file aside—never assume git exists).
- Let me pick: list findings; the user selects.
- Report only: exit unchanged.
NEVER auto-fix: every consistency fix is a content decision (which side wins)—there are no "safe" automatic fixes in this canary.
Multilingual
Cross-language comparison IS this canary's core case, worked in the languages the docs are written in. A poorly-handled language degrades to low-confidence SUSPECTED flags, never false alarms.
Problem report
If this canary misbehaves, OFFER to file it at https://github.com/TheColliery/CoalLedger/issues with a user-reviewed summary—never auto-submit.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

