Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

consistency-check一致性检查

Agent Skill

consistency-check 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

533

周安装

22

GitHub Stars

16,593

下载量

174
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:consistency-check(一致性检查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/donchitos/claude-code-game-studios
仓库路径:skills/consistency-check
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/donchitos/claude-code-game-studios --skill consistency-check
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/donchitos/claude-code-game-studios --skill consistency-check

简介

一致性检查工具用于检测游戏设计文档(GDD)与实体注册表的命名冲突,确保项目内部引用统一。

  • 适用于多人协作的游戏开发或复杂系统设计项目,防止因命名差异导致的运行时错误。
  • 通过 GitHub 安装并使用 npx skills add 命令添加,采用 grep-first 策略减少全量读取开销。
  • 建议在每次新增 GDD 后运行,作为预防性质量门禁的一部分。
  • consistency-check 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

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 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."

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

Glob 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: 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).

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])

---

### 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] — /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"]

Only append if docs/consistency-failures.md exists. If the file is missing, skip this step silently — do not create the file from this skill.


Next Steps

  • 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.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.66%
按下载量换算66

Claude

28.58%
按下载量换算50

Cursor

17.28%
按下载量换算30

Gemini CLI

10.12%
按下载量换算18

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills