Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Surface internal contradictions, conflicting requirements, and edge cases that expose hidden conflicts in a document, spec, plan, design, or set of requirements.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-logic-consistency-checkThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Requirements drift. Specs accumulate. A document written over weeks by multiple people — or a set of decisions made incrementally — can contain contradictions that nobody noticed because each piece was reviewed in isolation.
Requirements drift. Specs accumulate. A document written over weeks by multiple people — or a set of decisions made incrementally — can contain contradictions that nobody noticed because each piece was reviewed in isolation.
This skill reads the whole and finds where the parts disagree.
Step 1: Map the claims Before checking for consistency, inventory what the document asserts:
This map is what gets checked for internal coherence — not whether any claim is true, but whether the claims are consistent with each other.
Framing check: Confirm the specific document or set of claims before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and its key parameters (document type, scope, primary claims in tension) — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Check goal-constraint conflicts Do the stated goals require violating stated constraints? Common patterns:
Step 3: Check requirement-requirement conflicts Do individual requirements contradict each other?
Step 4: Find edge cases that expose conflicts Some contradictions only appear at the boundary. Ask: what happens when...
Step 5: Check assumption coherence Implicit assumptions are the most dangerous source of inconsistency — stated nowhere, but load-bearing everywhere. Surface them:
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Subject: [what was checked]
Contradictions Found
| Type | Item A | Item B | Conflict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal vs constraint | [goal] | [constraint] | [why they conflict] |
| Requirement vs requirement | [req] | [req] | [why they conflict] |
| Assumption vs fact | [assumption] | [fact] | [why they conflict] |
"None found" if clean.
Edge Cases That Expose Conflicts
Hidden Assumptions
Verdict [Overall consistency assessment — clean, minor issues, or significant conflicts that need resolution before proceeding]
Recommended Resolutions
Not every inconsistency is equally urgent. Flag severity: a contradiction in core requirements is a blocker; an ambiguity in an edge case may just need a decision logged. The goal is to make implicit conflicts explicit so they can be resolved consciously rather than discovered in production.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-logic-fixer — Resolve the inconsistencies found/s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check — Check conceptual and aesthetic coherence alongside logical consistency/s4h-identity-values-clarification — Resolve any values conflicts underlying the inconsistenciesnpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityReviews specs, PRDs, requirements, and design docs for unrelated features, oversized scope, contradictions, feasibility issues, scope imbalance, omissions, ambiguity, security concerns, and git repo conflicts.
Routes to the right logic analysis skill based on user need — checks reasoning, finds flaws/contradictions, validates arguments, maps dependencies and constraints.
Detects contradictions between documentation and code, ambiguous specs, and policy violations across codebases. Produces actionable incoherence report with resolution workflow for consistency audits.