dongsheng123132dongsheng123132/doc-consistency/SKILL.md

doc-consistency

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Check a long document against itself — dangling cross-references, numbering gaps and duplicates, TOC-vs-body mismatch, missing standard sections, terminology drift, leftover placeholders (TODO/TBD/XXX), stale years, and paragraphs lost in a merge. Reads .docx / .md / .txt and emits a located findings list plus a re-check command you can put in a contract. Runs fully offline with zero dependencies: no network, no upload, no model calls, so the document never leaves the machine. Use when the user asks to proofread, QA, sanity-check, or verify the internal consistency of a textbook, manuscript, bid or RFP response, manual, thesis, or contract set; or asks for a cross-reference audit, numbering audit, continuity check, or editorial consistency check; or says 长文档一致性 / 交叉引用 / 编号跳号 / 重号 / 术语不统一 / 合稿丢段 / 目录对不上 / 标书自检 / 稿件体检 / 定稿前检查 / 教材编号核对.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

TheColliery/CoalLedgertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
AndrewBrown-USDA/aigb-skills-usdatheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 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
TheColliery/CoalLedger★ 2same name
wukun2005-gif/ai-skills★ 2same 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.

The file

Create a free account to mount

Files

SKILL.md

doc-consistency · 长文档一致性体检

只做一件事：把「这份文档跟它自己一不一致」变成一件可以按按钮复查的事。

不写作、不润色、不判断内容对错。只查那些随篇幅指数增长、而人的注意力随篇幅衰减的错误。

一份 300 页的文件，人通读要两天，且两遍会看漏不一样的地方；机器跑一遍几十秒，跑十遍结果一模一样。

什么时候用

用户说这些话时：

「帮我检查一下这份教材/标书/手册/书稿」「定稿前体检一下」「稿件体检」
「编号有没有跳」「图表引用还在不在」「术语前后统一吗」「合稿有没有丢东西」
"proofread this manuscript" / "check cross-references" / "QA this proposal"
给出 .docx / .md / .txt 并要求核对一致性

不要用在：让你写内容、润色文笔、判断事实对错、做法律或技术判断。那些不是本技能的事。

怎么跑

node scripts/check.mjs <文件或目录…> [选项]

零依赖，只要有 Node 18+。不联网、不上传、不调模型。

选项	作用
`--all`	列出全部红点（默认只列前 20 条，汇总始终完整）
`--limit <n>`	清单显示条数上限
`--json`	输出完整 JSON（不截断），给程序/后续步骤用
`--glossary <file>`	术语表，每行 `正名 = 变体1, 变体2`
`--baseline <路径…>`	基准稿，用于合稿丢段比对
`--fail-on high\|medium\|low`	到该级别就退出码 1 —— 可写进 CI 或合同验收
`--lang zh\|en`	报告语言

常用姿势

# 单文件体检
node scripts/check.mjs 教材终稿.docx

# 整目录（多人分头写的章节）
node scripts/check.mjs ./书稿/ --all

# 合稿前后对比，找丢了哪几段
node scripts/check.mjs 合并稿.docx --baseline ./分册/

# 投标前自检，还有高危项就不许提交
node scripts/check.mjs 投标文件.docx --fail-on high

# 英文报告
node scripts/check.mjs manuscript.md --lang en

查什么

规则	抓的是
交叉引用悬空	正文写「见图 3-12」，但那张图不存在（也不在目录里）
编号重号 / 跳号 / 起始异常	图/表/式/附录序列断了、重了
目录 ↔ 正文对账	目录列了正文没有（读者翻空）／正文有目录漏了
章节引用悬空	「详见第 7 章」，但没有第 7 章
章节骨架缺项	多数章都有「学习目标」，某一章没有
术语写法不一致	AI Agent / AI agent / AI-Agent 混用；或违反给定术语表
占位符残留	TODO、TBD、待填、×××公司、Lorem ipsum
疑似旧版年份	全文主用 2026，某处冒出 2024 且挨着「项目/日期/合同」
标题重复	同级标题重名，目录里并成两条一样的
合稿疑似丢段	基准稿里有、当前稿里没有（需 `--baseline`）

报给用户时要做的事

先说汇总（各严重度条数 + 类型分布），再给清单。别一上来倒 100 行表格。
高危项逐条念，中低危可以只报数量和类型。
一定要把「你自己能重跑的复查清单」那段给出去 —— 这是本技能跟「我帮你看了一遍」的根本区别：验收标准是机器能判定的，可以写进合同。
报告里带 --fail-on high 的用法，提示可以塞进 CI / 交付流程。

老实说清楚的边界

Word 自动编号和自动题注是「域」，不落在正文文字里，本工具读不到。 遇到这种文档会明确报「题注不在文字层」，并说明这一项查不了，不代表没问题。不要替它打包票。
语义级的术语归并（「用户」和「客户」是不是同一个概念）需要模型判断，本工具不做，只做写法层面的确定性检查。
查的是「文档跟自己一致」，不是「内容正确」。这两件事不要混。
不出具法律意见、不做技术判断、不保证过审。

需要更进一步时

这些本工具不做，需要人工介入（HEFANGSHENG@gmail.com）：

改好的文件：原格式回写，不丢页眉页脚与自动编号
招标文件符合性矩阵：把招标文件逐条拆成检查项，与投标书比对，出「已响应 / 未响应 / 响应不充分」三态
跨全书的语义级术语归并与设定对账

缺 Node / 环境跑不起来时，可以让用户用 U-King 一键装好环境：https://u-king.org

Download now (ZIP)

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

What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free