000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator

Validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local documentation generating read-only discrepancy reports. Use when checking content alignment or finding mixed messaging. Trigger with phrases like "check consistency", "validate documentation", or "audit messaging".

claude-codecodexopenclaw
6 Tools
000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator Plugin
productivity Category

Allowed Tools

ReadWebFetchWebSearchGrepBash(diff:*)Bash(grep:*)

Provided by Plugin

000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator

Read-only validator that generates comprehensive discrepancy reports comparing messaging consistency across ANY HTML-based website (WordPress, Hugo, Next.js, React, Vue, static HTML, etc.), GitHub repositories, and local documentation. Detects mixed messaging without making changes.

productivity v2.0.0
View Plugin

Installation

This skill is included in the 000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator plugin:

/plugin install 000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator@claude-code-plugins-plus

Click to copy

Instructions

Content Consistency Validator

Overview

Checks content for tone, terminology, formatting, and structural consistency across multiple documentation sources (websites, GitHub repos, local docs). Generates read-only discrepancy reports with severity-classified findings and actionable fix suggestions including file paths and line numbers.

Examples

  • Pre-release audit: Before tagging a new version, run the validator to catch version mismatches between your README, docs site, and changelog — e.g., the website says v2.1.0 but the GitHub README still references v2.0.0.
  • Post-rebrand check: After renaming a product or updating terminology (e.g., "plugin" to "extension"), validate that all docs, landing pages, and contributing guides use the new term consistently.
  • Onboarding review: When a new contributor flags confusing docs, run a consistency check to surface contradictory feature claims, outdated contact info, or missing sections across your documentation sources.

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/)

Instructions

  1. Discover sources — scan for build directories (dist/, build/, public/, out/, _site/), GitHub README/CONTRIBUTING files, and local doc folders:

   find . -maxdepth 3 -name "README*" -o -name "CONTRIBUTING*" | head -20
   ls -d docs/ claudes-docs/ internal/ 2>/dev/null
  1. Extract structured data from each source: version numbers, feature claims, product names, taglines, contact info, URLs, and technical requirements:

   grep -rn 'v[0-9]\+\.[0-9]\+' docs/ README.md
   grep -rn -i 'features\|capabilities' docs/ README.md
  1. Verify extraction — confirm at least 3 data points per source. If a source returns empty, check the Error Handling table before continuing.
  2. Build comparison matrix pairing each source against every other (website vs GitHub, website vs local docs, GitHub vs local docs):

   diff <(grep -i 'version' README.md) <(grep -i 'version' docs/overview.md)
  1. 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
  1. Apply trust priority: website (most authoritative) > GitHub (developer-facing) > local docs (internal use).
  2. Generate report as Markdown with: executive summary, per-pair comparison tables, terminology consistency matrix, and prioritized action items with file paths and line numbers.
  3. Save to consistency-reports/YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS.md.

Report Format


# Consistency Report — YYYY-MM-DD

## Executive Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | 2     |
| Warning  | 5     |
| Info     | 3     |

## Website vs GitHub
| Field        | Website       | GitHub        | Severity |
|-------------|---------------|---------------|----------|
| Version     | v2.1.0        | v2.0.0        | Critical |
| Feature X   | listed        | missing       | Warning  |

## Action Items
1. **Critical** — Update `README.md:14` version from v2.0.0 → v2.1.0
2. **Warning** — Add "Feature X" to `README.md` feature list

Output

The skill produces a timestamped Markdown report saved to consistency-reports/YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS.md containing:

  • Executive summary: Severity counts (Critical/Warning/Info) at a glance
  • Pair comparison tables: Field-by-field comparison between each source pair with severity classification
  • Terminology matrix: Cross-source consistency check for product names, versions, and key terms
  • Prioritized action items: Specific fixes with file paths and line numbers, ordered by severity

Error Handling

Error Cause Solution
Website content unreachable URL returns 4xx/5xx or build dir missing Verify site is deployed or run local build; check WebFetch permissions
GitHub API rate limit Too many fetches in short window Pause and retry after reset window; use authenticated requests
No documentation directory Expected paths don't exist Confirm working directory; specify doc path explicitly
Empty content extraction Client-side rendering not visible to fetch Use local build output directory instead of live URL
Diff command failure File paths contain special characters Quote all file paths passed to diff and grep

Resources

  • Content source discovery logic: ${CLAUDESKILLDIR}/references/how-it-works.md
  • Trust priority and validation timing: ${CLAUDESKILLDIR}/references/best-practices.md
  • Use-case walkthroughs: ${CLAUDESKILLDIR}/references/example-use-cases.md

Ready to use 000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator?