consistency-check
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Check registered entities, values, and formulas for conflicts across game design documents.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. 12 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 11 are very specific to this project.
12
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
11
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 23
After writing each new GDD (before moving to the next system)
- Very specific: line 24
Before $review-all-gdds (so that skill starts with a clean baseline)
- Very specific: line 25
Before $create-architecture (inconsistencies poison downstream ADRs)
- Very specific: line 35
No argument / full — check all registered entries against all GDDs
- Common: line 46
If the file does not exist or has no entries:
- Common: line 89
Do NOT do full reads — extract only the matching lines and their immediate context (-C 3 lines).
- Very specific: line 158
Which GDD is correct?: Check the source: field in the registry — the source GDD is the authoritative owner.
- Common: line 161
Is the registry itself out of date?: If the source GDD was updated after the registry entry was written (check git log), the registry may …
- Common: line 163
Is this a genuine design change?: If the conflict represents an intentional design decision, the resolution is: update the source GDD, …
- Common: line 173
Not a conflict; just noting the reference.
- Common: line 229
If stale registry entries were found, ask:
- Very specific: line 233
Update the value / attribute field
- Very specific: line 235
Add a YAML comment with the old value: # was: [old_value] before [date]
- Common: line 237
If new entries were found in GDDs that are not in the registry, ask:
- Common: line 241
Only add entries that appear in more than one GDD (true cross-system facts).
- Common: line 246
After writing: Verdict: COMPLETE — consistency check finished.
- Common: line 247
If conflicts remain unresolved: Verdict: BLOCKED — [N] conflicts need manual resolution before architecture begins.
- Very specific: line 251
Before writing any report or tracking record, show the exact proposed changes to docs/consistency-report-[date].md, …
- Distinctive: line 253
After approval, append to the Reflexion Log:
- Very specific: line 255
If any 🔴 CONFLICT entries were found (regardless of whether they were resolved), append an entry to docs/consistency-failures.md for each …
- Very specific: line 268
If docs/consistency-failures.md does not exist, create it with this header before appending:
- Distinctive: line 301
Never end the skill with plain text.
- Very specific: line 307
If PASS: Run $review-all-gdds for holistic design-theory review, or $create-architecture if all MVP GDDs are complete.
- Common: line 311
If STALE REGISTRY: Update the registry (Phase 6), then re-run to verify.
- Very specific: line 312
Run $consistency-check after writing each new GDD to catch issues early, not at architecture time.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Codex-native operating rules
Keep repository source artifacts read-only during analysis and cite concrete file evidence for every finding. Ask at most one user question per turn and wait for the answer. A report, tracking record, or phase-state update may be written only after its exact changeset and paths are approved. Do not fix reviewed source artifacts unless the user gives separate explicit authorization.
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
$design-systemto write GDDs — the registry is populated automatically after each GDD is completed. Nothing to check yet."
Stop and exit.
Build four lookup tables from the registry:
- entity_map:
{ name → { source, attributes, referenced_by } } - item_map:
{ name → { source, value_gold, weight, ... } } - formula_map:
{ name → { source, variables, output_range } } - constant_map:
{ name → { source, value, unit } }
Count total registered entries. Report:
Registry loaded: [N] entities, [N] items, [N] formulas, [N] constants
Scope: [full | since-last-review | entity:name]Phase 2: Locate In-Scope GDDs
repository file search pattern="design/gdd/*.md"Exclude: game-concept.md, systems-index.md, game-pillars.md — these are
not system GDDs.
For since-last-review mode:
git log --name-only --pretty=format: -- design/gdd/ | grep "\.md$" | sort -uLimit 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: repository text search-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:
repository text search pattern="[entity_name]" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="content" -C 3For 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 repository text search 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 FOUNDVerdict:
- 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: Approve Tracking Changeset
Before writing any report or tracking record, show the exact proposed changes to docs/consistency-report-[date].md, docs/consistency-failures.md when conflicts exist, and production/session-state/active.md. Ask once for approval of this bounded changeset. If declined, keep the results in conversation and do not write any of these files.
After approval, append to the 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"]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. A missing log file is not a reason to lose approved conflict history.
Phase 7: Session State and Closing
As part of the approved tracking changeset, append to production/session-state/active.md (create the file if it does not exist):
<!-- CONSISTENCY-CHECK: [date] | GDDs checked: [N] | Conflicts found: [N] | Report: docs/consistency-report-[date].md -->Then close with a one-question prompt:
- Prompt: "Consistency check complete — [N] conflicts found. What next?"
- Options:
[A] Fix the highest-priority conflict now[B] Save full report and stop[C] Run $design-review on the most conflicted GDD[D] Stop here
Never end the skill with plain text. Always close with this prompt.
Recovery / Reference
- 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.
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 7
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k56% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9391% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1792% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 891% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 191% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 192% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 160% same
Wrote their own version · 5
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- NashEQify/forge★ 2same name
- sakuruamayday-ops/enterprise-project-application-assistant★ 2same name
- crfldrxyz/AuthorOps-Skills★ 0same name
- ShiningPlague/shiningplague-studio★ 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- Codex Studio Testing Framework/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- prototypes/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tests/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- story-readinessSkill
- team-audioSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

