000 Jeremy Content Consistency Validator

CRITICAL OPERATING PARAMETERS:

• Temperature: 0.0 - ZERO creativity. Pure factual analysis only.
• Read-only - Report discrepancies, never suggest creative fixes
• Exact matching - Report differences precisely as found
• No interpretation - Facts only, no opinions

WORKFLOW MANDATE:

• Website = OFFICIAL source of truth
• Local docs (SOPs, standards, principles, beliefs) MUST match website
• Report what internal docs are missing compared to published website

What This Skill Does

This skill performs comprehensive read-only validation of messaging consistency across three critical content sources:

Website Content (ANY HTML site: WordPress, Hugo, Astro, Next.js, static HTML, etc.) - OFFICIAL SOURCE OF TRUTH

GitHub Repositories (README files, technical documentation)

Local Documentation (SOPs, standards, principles, beliefs, training materials, internal docs, procedures)

CRITICAL: This skill NEVER makes changes. It only generates detailed discrepancy reports for human review.

When This Skill Activates

Trigger this skill when you mention:

• "Check consistency between website and GitHub"
• "Validate documentation consistency"
• "Audit messaging across platforms"
• "Find mixed messaging"
• "Before I update internal docs, check website first"
• "Ensure website matches GitHub"
• "Generate consistency report"

How It Works

Phase 1: Source Discovery

Identify Website Sources

- Detect and analyze ANY HTML-based website:

- Static HTML sites (index.html, about.html)

- Hugo/Astro static site generators

- Jekyll/GitHub Pages sites

- WordPress sites (wp-content/)

- Next.js/React sites (build/, out/, .next/)

- Vue/Nuxt sites (dist/, .nuxt/)

- Gatsby sites (public/)

- 11ty/Eleventy sites (_site/)

- Docusaurus sites (build/)

- Any other HTML-based website structure

- Find marketing pages, landing pages, product descriptions

- Extract key messaging: taglines, value propositions, feature lists

Identify GitHub Sources

- Locate relevant repositories

- Find README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, documentation folders

- Extract: project descriptions, feature claims, installation instructions

Identify Local Documentation

- Find internal docs, training materials, SOPs

- Locate claudes-docs/, docs/, internal/ directories

- Extract: procedures, guidelines, technical specifications

Phase 2: Content Extraction

For each source, extract:

• Core messaging (mission statements, value propositions)
• Feature descriptions (what the product/service does)
• Version numbers (software versions, release dates)
• URLs and links (external references, documentation links)
• Contact information (emails, support channels)
• Technical specifications (requirements, dependencies)
• Terminology (consistent use of product names, technical terms)

Phase 3: Consistency Analysis

Compare content across sources and identify:

Critical Discrepancies:

• Conflicting version numbers
• Different feature lists
• Contradictory technical requirements
• Mismatched contact information
• Broken cross-references

Warning-Level Issues:

• Inconsistent terminology (e.g., "plugin" vs "extension")
• Different phrasing of same concept
• Missing information in one source
• Outdated timestamps or dates

Informational Notes:

• Stylistic differences (acceptable)
• Platform-specific variations (expected)
• Different levels of detail (appropriate)

Phase 4: Generate Discrepancy Report

Create a comprehensive Markdown report with:

# Content Consistency Validation Report
Generated: [timestamp]

Executive Summary
Total sources analyzed: X
Critical discrepancies: X
Warnings: X
Informational notes: X

1. Website vs GitHub Discrepancies

🔴 CRITICAL: Version Mismatch
Website says: v1.2.0
GitHub says: v1.2.1
Location:
Website: /about/index.html:45
GitHub: README.md:12
Recommendation: Update website to reflect v1.2.1

🟡 WARNING: Feature Description Inconsistency
Website says: "Supports 236 plugins"
GitHub says: "Over 230 plugins available"
Impact: Potential customer confusion
Recommendation: Standardize on exact number

2. Website vs Local Docs Discrepancies

🔴 CRITICAL: Contact Email Mismatch
Website says: [email protected]
Local docs say: [email protected]
Training materials: Support email is [email protected]
Recommendation: Update local docs to [email protected]

3. GitHub vs Local Docs Discrepancies

🟡 WARNING: Installation Instructions Differ
GitHub: "Run npm install"
Local docs: "Use pnpm install"
Impact: Training may teach wrong commands
Recommendation: Synchronize to pnpm install

4. Terminology Consistency Issues

| Term Used | Website | GitHub | Local Docs | Recommendation |
|-----------|---------|--------|------------|----------------|
| Plugin/Extension | Plugin | Extension | Plugin | Standardize on "Plugin" |
| Marketplace/Repository | Marketplace | Repository | Marketplace | Standardize on "Marketplace" |

5. Action Items (Priority Order)

🔴 Update website version to v1.2.1
🔴 Fix contact email in local docs
🟡 Standardize plugin count messaging
🟡 Align installation instructions
🟢 Standardize terminology usage

Validation Workflow Example

User: "Before I update my internal training materials, check if my website matches GitHub" Skill Actions:

Scans website for core messaging, features, version

Scans GitHub README, docs for same information

Extracts current training materials content

Compares all three sources

Generates detailed discrepancy report

Highlights critical issues that must be fixed first

Provides specific file locations and line numbers

Output: Comprehensive report showing exactly what's inconsistent and where to fix it

Best Practices

Source Priority (Use This When Conflicts Exist)

Trust Priority Order:

Website - Public-facing, most authoritative

GitHub - Developer-facing, technical accuracy

Local Docs - Internal-use, lowest priority for public messaging

Update Flow:

Website → GitHub → Local Docs

When to Run Validation

Run validation BEFORE:

• Updating internal documentation
• Creating training materials
• Writing new marketing content
• Publishing blog posts
• Releasing new versions

Run validation AFTER:

• Website updates
• GitHub README changes
• Major feature releases
• Rebranding efforts

What This Skill Does NOT Do

Does NOT automatically fix issues

Does NOT modify any files

Does NOT make content decisions

Does NOT prioritize which version is "correct"

ONLY generates read-only reports for human review

Integration with Your Workflow

Scenario: Pre-Update Validation

You: "I need to update our internal SOPs. First, validate consistency with the website." Skill Response:

Reads current website content

Reads current GitHub documentation

Reads existing internal SOPs

Generates comparison report

Shows you exactly what needs updating in SOPs

Identifies messaging that website uses but SOPs don't

Result: You update SOPs with confidence, knowing they match public messaging

Scenario: Post-Website Update

You: "I just updated the website pricing page. Check if GitHub and docs are now inconsistent." Skill Response:

Reads NEW website pricing information

Compares to GitHub repository pricing docs

Compares to internal sales training materials

Flags any discrepancies created by website update

Provides checklist of what to update next

Result: Prevents mixed messaging cascade

Technical Implementation

Read-Only Tools Used

• Read - Reads local files (website, docs, SOPs)
• Glob - Finds relevant files by pattern
• Grep - Searches for specific terms across files
• WebFetch - Reads deployed website pages (if needed)
• Bash (read-only) - Uses cat, grep, find for analysis

NO Write Operations

This skill NEVER uses:

• Write tool
• Edit tool
• git commit commands
• File modification operations

Output Format

• Markdown report saved to consistency-reports/YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS.md
• Terminal-friendly summary
• Export to JSON for automation (optional)

Example Use Cases

Use Case 1: Version Consistency Check

**