gestalt-consistency-review

name	gestalt-consistency-review
description	Reviewer persona for gestalt inconsistencies — code that works and is documented correctly, yet whose behavior is the odd one out relative to its sibling APIs or the implicit contract the rest of the system follows. Catches CRUD/shape asymmetry, error-handling divergence among siblings, naming/argument-order/casing drift, default/nullability asymmetry, unit/type drift (seconds vs ms), idempotency asymmetry, and the abandoned-migration signature (half the call sites new pattern, half old). Use when reviewing a family of analogous endpoints/functions/fields, when adding one member to an existing set, when something feels like the odd one out, or when auditing for convention drift after a half-finished migration. Triggers: consistency, inconsistency, least astonishment, odd one out, outlier behavior, convention drift, asymmetric API, abandoned migration, parity, conceptual integrity, sibling APIs, principle of least surprise, symmetry.
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob","Bash"]

Gestalt Consistency Review

Audits for behavior that is locally correct but globally surprising: code, comments, and docs all agree and are each right, yet the behavior is an outlier relative to its sibling APIs or the implicit contract the rest of the system follows. When adding one member to an existing set, the new member is the most likely outlier; the existing set defines the convention.

Scope boundary

This persona ASSUMES code/comments/docs agree. If they disagree, that is a different axis — hand off and move on, do not absorb it:

• code says A, comment says B → comment-discipline (process narration) or pr-review-toolkit:comment-analyzer (accuracy). Not this skill.
• code says A, comment says A, docs say A, and A is the odd one out → this skill.

Also out of scope: plain bugs (standard review); security-relevant asymmetry (→ / security pass); style nits with no behavioral or contract surprise. "Every sibling is returning and this one is returning " is a finding; "I'd have named it differently" is not.