Incoherence Detector Skill

Purpose

Detect and resolve incoherence: contradictions between docs and code, ambiguous specifications, missing documentation, or policy violations.

Triggers

Trigger Phrase	Operation
find contradictions in the docs	Detection phase (steps 1-13)
audit docs vs code consistency	Detection phase with Dimension A focus
check for stale documentation	Detection phase with Dimension D focus
run incoherence detector	Full detection phase
reconcile incoherence report	Reconciliation phase (steps 14-22)

---

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Documentation may contradict actual code behavior
• Preparing for a release and need a consistency audit
• Specs have changed but implementation status is unclear
• Multiple authors edited docs and code independently

Use direct code review instead when:

• Investigating a single known bug
• The inconsistency is already identified and just needs a fix

---

Anti-Patterns

Avoid	Why	Instead
Skipping the report filename specification	Script requires output path upfront	Specify filename before starting detection
Running reconciliation without user edits	Nothing to apply, wasted steps	Wait for user to fill Resolution sections
Editing the report format manually	Breaks reconciliation parsing	Let the script manage report structure
Selecting all 11 dimensions	Excessive scope, diminishing returns	Let step 2 select the most relevant 3-5
Ignoring low-severity issues	They accumulate into real drift	Triage all issues, defer explicitly if needed

---

Verification

After detection:

• Report file created at user-specified path
• Each issue has Type, Severity, Source A/B, Suggestions, and Resolution section
• Dimension coverage matches selection from step 2

After reconciliation:

• Resolved issues show status marker in report
• Code changes match user-provided resolutions
• No unresolved critical or high severity issues remain

---

Prerequisites

Before starting: User must specify the report filename (e.g., "output to incoherence-report.md").

Scripts

Script	Purpose
scripts/incoherence.py	22-step detection and reconciliation workflow for doc-code contradictions

Invocation

# Detection phase (steps 1-13)
python3 scripts/incoherence.py --step-number 1 --total-steps 22 --thoughts "<context>"

# Reconciliation phase (steps 14-22, after user edits report)
python3 scripts/incoherence.py --step-number 14 --total-steps 22 --thoughts "Reconciling..."

Process

Phase 1: Detection (Steps 1-13)

Parent orchestration (Steps 1-3):

1. Codebase survey
2. Dimension selection (pick 3-5 from catalog A-K)
3. Exploration dispatch to sub-agents

Exploration sub-agents (Steps 4-7): 4. Broad sweep across selected dimensions 5. Coverage check for gaps 6. Gap-fill for missed areas 7. Format findings

Parent synthesis (Steps 8-9): 8. Synthesize exploration results 9. Dispatch deep-dive sub-agents for confirmed issues

Deep-dive sub-agents (Steps 10-11): 10. Targeted exploration of each issue 11. Format detailed findings

Parent finalization (Steps 12-13): 12. Verdict analysis (severity, type classification) 13. Report generation to user-specified file

User edits the report, filling in Resolution sections for each issue.

Phase 2: Reconciliation (Steps 14-22)

Parent planning (Steps 14-17): 14. Parse edited report for user resolutions 15. Analyze resolution feasibility 16. Plan code changes 17. Dispatch apply sub-agents

Apply sub-agents (Steps 18-19): 18. Apply code changes per user resolutions 19. Format results

Parent completion (Steps 20-22): 20. Collect results (loop if more waves needed) 21. Update report with resolution status markers 22. Final reconciliation complete

Reconciliation Behavior

Idempotent: Can be run multiple times on the same report.

Skip conditions (issue left unchanged):

• No resolution provided by user
• Already marked as resolved (from previous run)
• Could not apply (sub-agent failed)

Only action: Mark successfully applied resolutions as ✅ RESOLVED in report.

Report Format

Step 9 generates issues with Resolution sections:

### Issue I1: [Title]

**Type**: Contradiction | Ambiguity | Gap | Policy Violation
**Severity**: critical | high | medium | low

#### Source A / Source B

[quotes and locations]

#### Suggestions

1. [Option A]
2. [Option B]

#### Resolution

<!-- USER: Write your decision below. Be specific. -->

<!-- /Resolution -->

After reconciliation, resolved issues get a Status section:

#### Resolution

<!-- USER: Write your decision below. Be specific. -->

Use the spec value (100MB).

<!-- /Resolution -->

#### Status

✅ RESOLVED — src/uploader.py:156: Changed MAX_FILE_SIZE to 100MB

Dimension Catalog (A-K)

Cat	Name	Detects
A	Specification vs Behavior	Docs vs code
B	Interface Contract Integrity	Types/schemas vs runtime
C	Cross-Reference Consistency	Doc vs doc
D	Temporal Consistency	Stale references
E	Error Handling Consistency	Error docs vs implementation
F	Configuration & Environment	Config docs vs code
G	Ambiguity & Underspecification	Vague specs
H	Policy & Convention Compliance	ADRs/style guides violated
I	Completeness & Documentation Gaps	Missing docs
J	Compositional Consistency	Claims valid alone, impossible together
K	Implicit Contract Integrity	Names/messages that lie about behavior