instructions-consistency-analysis

name	instructions-consistency-analysis
description	Detects contradictions, duplicated policy statements, and precedence ambiguities across .instructions files. Use for consistency reviews, conflict detection, and policy deduplication audits.

Instructions Consistency Analysis

Analyze .instructions/ content for policy consistency problems that format and link checks do not catch.

Method

1) Identify Policy Domains

Start with domain definitions in:

• references/known-policy-domains.md

2) Gather Claims Per Domain

For each domain, list files that make explicit claims or rules.

3) Compare Claims

Compare statements pairwise and classify each relationship as:

• CONFLICT: claims cannot both be true.
• DUPLICATE: same policy repeated without reference.
• AMBIGUOUS: both claims may apply, but precedence is unclear.
• CONSISTENT: aligned and non-conflicting.

4) Recommend Reconciliation

For each issue, propose the minimal corrective action:

• pick canonical source,
• delete duplicate text and cross-reference, or
• add explicit scope/precedence wording.

What to Check

1. Contradicting rules across files.
2. Duplicated policies with drift risk.
3. Role and skill scope overlap.
4. Org-vs-project precedence ambiguity.

Output Format

## Consistency Analysis: [scope]

### Conflicts
- CONFLICT: [topic] — [file-A] says X, [file-B] says Y
  Recommendation: [how to reconcile]

### Duplicates
- DUPLICATE: [topic] — restated in [file-A] and [file-B]
  Recommendation: consolidate into [canonical-file]

### Ambiguities
- AMBIGUOUS: [topic] — both [file-A] and [file-B] apply
  Recommendation: add explicit precedence

### Clean
- N policy domains checked, N consistent

Scope Limits

• This is analysis-only by default; do not auto-edit unless asked.
• Use instructions-format-validation for structural checks.
• Use instructions-reference-integrity for broken links and anchors.