logic-consistency-check

Name: logic-consistency-check
Availability: InStock
Author: human-avatar

Detect contradictions, conflicting requirements, and hidden edge cases in documents.

212|23|Updated May 23, 2026

Search Tags:#edge cases #assumptions #consistency check #conflict detection #requirements review #spec validation #product briefs

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill logic-consistency-check

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: logic-consistency-check
Source: https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/tree/main/skills/logic-consistency-check
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill logic-consistency-check

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It helps surface internal contradictions, conflicting requirements, and edge-case failures that make a document, spec, plan, or requirements set inconsistent or impossible to satisfy as written.

Core Features & Use Cases

Claim mapping for coherence: Inventories goals, constraints, assumptions, decisions, and acceptance criteria so consistency is checked across the whole document.
Conflict detection: Identifies goal-vs-constraint and requirement-vs-requirement contradictions, including equivocation when the same terms mean different things.
Assumption and edge-case surfacing: Reveals hidden assumptions and boundary scenarios where separate parts of a design fail to align.

Quick Start

Run logic-consistency-check on your requirements document by asking an assistant: “Check this spec for contradictions, conflicting requirements, and hidden assumptions, and summarize what must be fixed.”

Frequently Asked Questions about logic-consistency-check

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I check my requirements document for contradictions and conflicting requirements?▼

To check requirements for contradictions, you map stated goals, constraints, and acceptance criteria to identify goal-vs-constraint conflicts. This conflict detection process reveals hidden assumption and boundary-condition conflicts, ensuring your spec validation produces an actionable resolution.

What is the best way to surface hidden assumptions and edge cases in a product brief?▼

Surfacing hidden assumptions and edge cases in product briefs requires inventorying claims and verifying requirement-requirement compatibility. This consistency check exposes equivocation where terms mean different things, preventing drift between your design goals and constraints.

How do I perform a spec validation when incremental changes cause goal-constraint drift?▼

Perform spec validation for goal-constraint drift by mapping stated claims across the entire document to verify compatibility. This detects requirement-vs-requirement contradictions and boundary scenarios where separate design parts fail to align.

Can I use a consistency check for architecture and product brief validation?▼

Yes, you can apply a consistency check to architecture and product brief validation. It inventories goals, constraints, assumptions, and decisions to verify requirement-requirement compatibility across the whole document, surfacing edge-case failures before commitment.

Why does requirements review fail to catch equivocation and boundary-condition conflicts?▼

Requirements review misses equivocation and boundary-condition conflicts when assumptions are not explicitly mapped against goals and constraints. Consistency checking inventories these claims to detect where identical terms carry different meanings across separate design components.

When should I not rely on automated conflict detection for spec validation?▼

You should not rely solely on automated conflict detection when a spec lacks clearly stated goals, constraints, or acceptance criteria to map. Without explicit claims to inventory, the consistency check cannot effectively surface hidden assumption conflicts or boundary scenarios.