| name | llm-wiki-conflict-resolver |
| description | Help resolve contradictions found by wiki-lint, provenance checks, or user review. Use when LLM-Wiki pages disagree about facts, recommendations, tool status, decisions, definitions, or stale claims and the agent should mediate rather than auto-fix truth. |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Designed for Agent Skills-compatible coding agents. Requires read access to conflicting pages and sources; write access is optional after human approval. |
| metadata | {"author":"po4yka","version":"1.0.0","install_scope":"self-contained"} |
LLM-Wiki Conflict Resolver
Goal
Turn contradictions into explicit review decisions without silently rewriting truth.
When to use
wiki-lint reports two or more pages making contradictory claims about the same fact.- A provenance check finds a claim whose cited source no longer supports it.
- A human reviewer flags disagreement between a decision note and a concept page.
- Two pages define the same term differently (terminology drift) or appear to duplicate the same concept.
- A claim looks stale (tool status, recommendation, or decision that may have changed) and needs a review decision rather than a silent edit.
Inputs
- Conflicting pages or lint report.
- Supporting source pages and raw sources.
- Desired mode: analyze, propose resolution, or apply approved patch.
Procedure
1. Define conflict set
Group conflicting claims by topic. For each claim, record:
- page path;
- claim text;
- status;
- source support;
- update date;
- confidence/review state;
- whether it is extracted, inferred, ambiguous or synthesis.
2. Classify conflict type
Use:
| Type | Meaning |
|---|
| stale | One claim was true but is now outdated. |
| scope mismatch | Claims are true under different conditions. |
| source disagreement | Sources genuinely disagree. |
| inference error | A page inferred too much. |
| terminology drift | Same term used differently. |
| duplicate concept | Two pages should be merged or separated. |
3. Present evidence
Show concise evidence and provenance for each side. Do not use generated summaries as the only evidence for high-impact conflicts.
4. Propose resolution options
Possible actions:
- mark one page stale;
- split by scope;
- add caveat;
- demote claim to ambiguous;
- merge duplicate pages;
- create a decision note;
- request external source verification.
5. Apply only approved changes
In apply mode, patch only the approved resolution and append to wiki/log.md.
Output
## Conflict summary
## Claims in conflict
## Evidence
## Conflict type
## Resolution options
## Recommended review decision
## Approved patches
Safety gates
- Do not auto-resolve truth conflicts.
- Do not delete minority or outdated claims without preserving history.
- Do not present inference as extracted fact.
- Do not mark resolved conflicts verified without human approval.
- Re-verify a claim against current sources (not just the conflicting page's own text) before recommending which side of a stale or source-disagreement conflict to keep.
