AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Consistency Check

skill-frabcd-codex-ai-game-studio-consistency-check · by frabcd

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 variables. text search-first approach — reads registry then targets only conflicting GDD sections rather than full document reads.

— No reviews yet
0 installs
27 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-frabcd-codex-ai-game-studio-consistency-check

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
  • ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
  • ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • ✓ Untrusted network calls
  • ✓ Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • ✓ Network access No
  • ✓ Filesystem access No
  • ✓ Shell / process execution No
  • ✓ Environment & secrets No
  • ✓ Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-frabcd-codex-ai-game-studio-consistency-check)

Reliability & compatibility

✓ Security review passed
0 installs to date
— no reviews yet
● 1mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Consistency Check? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

> Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at 984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375f under MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.

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 $ai-game-studio:design-system's per-section checks may have missed and what $ai-game-studio:review-all-gdds's holistic review catches too late.

When to run:

  • After writing each new GDD (before moving to the next system)
  • Before $ai-game-studio:review-all-gdds (so that skill starts with a clean baseline)
  • Before $ai-game-studio:create-architecture (inconsistencies poison downstream ADRs)
  • On demand: $ai-game-studio: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 report
  • entity: — check one specific entity across all GDDs
  • item: — 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 $ai-game-studio:design-system to 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

file discovery 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: 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:

text search 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 text search 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.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), append an entry to docs/consistency-failures.md for each conflict:

### [YYYY-MM-DD] — $ai-game-studio: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

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

Then append the new conflict entries. Never skip logging — a missing file is not a reason to lose conflict history.


Phase 7: Session State and Closing

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

Then close with an the available user-input mechanism widget:

  • 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 $ai-game-studio:design-review on the most conflicted GDD
  • [D] Stop here

Never end the skill with plain text. Always close with this widget.


Recovery / Reference

  • If PASS: Run $ai-game-studio:review-all-gdds for holistic design-theory review, or

$ai-game-studio:create-architecture if all MVP GDDs are complete.

  • If CONFLICTS FOUND: Fix the flagged GDDs, then re-run

$ai-game-studio:consistency-check to confirm resolution.

  • If STALE REGISTRY: Update the registry (Phase 6), then re-run to verify.
  • Run $ai-game-studio:consistency-check after writing each new GDD to catch issues early,

not at architecture time.

Codex portability

Use the search, file-editing, shell, user-input, and subagent capabilities available in the active Codex surface. Use PowerShell syntax on Windows and POSIX syntax on macOS/Linux; do not require a Unix compatibility layer on Windows. Inherit the active model and permission mode, and do not weaken approval or sandbox boundaries.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.