gate-consistency

name	gate-consistency
description	Run the Consistency Gate (PASS/WARN/FAIL) to catch cross-chapter contradictions (character traits/state, world/system rules, timeline, who-knows-what) and produce a prioritized fix list.

gate-consistency

Use when (proactive triggers)

Call this skill without being asked when you observe any of the following:

• You are about to draft the next chapter and the story state feels “fuzzy”.
• A chapter revision might introduce contradictions (character state, timeline, rules).
• The user explicitly asks to check “一致性/设定穿帮/前后矛盾/知情边界”.

Quick start

1. Choose scope (one chapter, an arc, or a milestone span under chapters/).
2. Read relevant constraints (usually spec/continuity/, plus spec/characters/, spec/world/, spec/system/, spec/timeline/ as needed).
3. Scan the text for contradictions and drift:
   • character traits / injuries / possessions / permissions
   • world + system rule compliance (limits, costs, exceptions)
   • timeline order + time passage plausibility
   • knowledge boundaries (“who knows what when”), consistent with POV
4. Output a Gate Report.

Gate Report format

• Target: Consistency
• Result: PASS / WARN / FAIL
• Findings: list of {severity, location, problem, suggested_fix}
• Next step: continue / revise upstream / prioritize fixes / rollback

References

• Detailed checklist + examples: references/CONSISTENCY_CHECKS.md

Fix routing (where to repair)

• If the issue is caused by missing/weak canon, fix upstream first:
  • characters/state → spec-characters / spec-continuity
  • rules/boundaries → spec-system / spec-world
  • ordering/deadlines → spec-timeline
• If the canon is correct but prose drifted, revise the relevant chapter(s).
• If the inconsistency is intentional (lie / unreliable narrator), encode the intent as a constraint in the right spec domain so it stops flagging as “accidental drift”.

Constraints

• Do not modify story files while running this gate; only report findings.
• Findings MUST be anchored to concrete text (file + line or quote).

Self-check

• Are findings anchored to concrete text (quote/line) instead of vibe?
• Are suggested fixes upstream-first (outline/spec) when appropriate?