llm-wiki-conflict-resolver

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stale	One claim was true but is now outdated.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.