Content Consistency Validator

Overview

Cross-platform content consistency auditing for organizations maintaining messaging across websites, GitHub repositories, and local documentation. This read-only skill discovers content sources, extracts key messaging elements, and generates severity-graded discrepancy reports -- without modifying any files.

Prerequisites

• Access to at least two content sources (website, GitHub repo, or local docs directory)

• WebFetch permissions configured for remote URLs (deployed sites, GitHub raw content)

• Local documentation stored in recognizable paths (docs/ , claudes-docs/ , internal/ )

• Grep and diff access for comparing extracted content fragments

Instructions

• Discover all content sources by scanning for website build directories (e.g., dist/ , build/ , public/ , out/ , _site/ ), GitHub README/CONTRIBUTING files, and local documentation folders.

• Extract structured data from each source: version numbers, feature claims, product names, taglines, contact information, URLs, and technical requirements.

• Build a cross-source comparison matrix pairing each source against every other source (website vs GitHub, website vs local docs, GitHub vs local docs).

• Classify discrepancies by severity:

• Critical: conflicting version numbers, contradictory feature lists, mismatched contact info, broken cross-references.

• Warning: inconsistent terminology (e.g., "plugin" vs "extension"), missing information in one source, outdated dates.

• Informational: stylistic differences, platform-specific wording, differing detail levels.

• Apply trust priority when noting conflicts: website (most authoritative) > GitHub (developer-facing) > local docs (internal use).

• Generate the final Markdown report with executive summary, per-pair comparison tables, a terminology consistency matrix, and prioritized action items with file paths and line numbers.

• Save the report to consistency-reports/YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS.md .

Output

• Markdown report containing:

• Executive summary with discrepancy counts grouped by severity

• Source-pair comparison sections (website vs GitHub, website vs local docs, GitHub vs local docs)

• Terminology consistency matrix showing term usage across all sources

• Prioritized action items with specific file locations, line numbers, and suggested corrections

• Report file saved to consistency-reports/ with timestamped filename

Error Handling

Error Cause Solution

Website content unreachable Deployed URL returns 4xx/5xx or local build directory missing Verify the site is deployed or run the local build; check WebFetch permissions

GitHub API rate limit exceeded Too many raw content fetches in a short window Pause and retry after the rate-limit reset window; use authenticated requests

No documentation directory found Expected paths (docs/ , claudes-docs/ ) do not exist Confirm correct working directory; specify the documentation path explicitly

Empty content extraction Source page uses client-side rendering not visible to fetch Use a local build output directory instead of the live URL

Diff command failure File paths contain special characters Quote all file paths passed to diff and grep commands

Examples

Example 1: Pre-release version audit

• Scenario: A new version (v2.1.0) ships but internal training docs still reference v2.0.0.

• Action: Run the validator across the website, GitHub README, and docs/ directory.

• Result: Report flags version mismatch as Critical, listing each file and line where the old version appears.

Example 2: Feature claim alignment after adding a new capability

• Scenario: The website announces "AI-powered search" but the GitHub README omits it.

• Action: Validator extracts feature lists from both sources and compares.

• Result: Warning-level discrepancy noting the missing feature mention in the GitHub README with a suggested addition.

Example 3: Terminology consistency check

• Scenario: The website uses "plugins" while local docs use "extensions" and GitHub uses "add-ons."

• Action: Validator builds a terminology matrix across all three sources.

• Result: Informational note with a recommendation to standardize on a single term, listing every occurrence.

Resources

• Content source discovery logic: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/how-it-works.md

• Trust priority and validation timing guidance: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/best-practices.md

• Concrete use-case walkthroughs: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/example-use-cases.md

• YAML 1.2 specification (for config file validation): https://yaml.org/spec/

• GitHub REST API documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/rest