Llm wiki conflict resolver
Skill po4yka/llm-wiki-skills/skills/llm-wiki-conflict-resolver
Portable Agent Skills for building, operating, evaluating, and governing LLM-Wiki knowledge systems.
npx -y skills add po4yka/llm-wiki-skills --skill llm-wiki-conflict-resolverAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Help resolve contradictions found by wiki-lint, provenance checks, or user review. Use when LLM-Wiki pages disagree about facts, recommendations, tool status, decisions, definitions, or stale claims and the agent should mediate rather than auto-fix truth.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
LLM-Wiki Conflict Resolver
Goal
Turn contradictions into explicit review decisions without silently rewriting truth.
When to use
wiki-lintreports two or more pages making contradictory claims about the same fact.- A provenance check finds a claim whose cited source no longer supports it.
- A human reviewer flags disagreement between a decision note and a concept page.
- Two pages define the same term differently (terminology drift) or appear to duplicate the same concept.
- A claim looks stale (tool status, recommendation, or decision that may have changed) and needs a review decision rather than a silent edit.
Inputs
- Conflicting pages or lint report.
- Supporting source pages and raw sources.
- Desired mode: analyze, propose resolution, or apply approved patch.
Procedure
1. Define conflict set
Group conflicting claims by topic. For each claim, record:
- page path;
- claim text;
- status;
- source support;
- update date;
- confidence/review state;
- whether it is extracted, inferred, ambiguous or synthesis.
2. Classify conflict type
Use:
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
| stale | One claim was true but is now outdated. |
| scope mismatch | Claims are true under different conditions. |
| source disagreement | Sources genuinely disagree. |
| inference error | A page inferred too much. |
| terminology drift | Same term used differently. |
| duplicate concept | Two pages should be merged or separated. |
3. Present evidence
Show concise evidence and provenance for each side. Do not use generated summaries as the only evidence for high-impact conflicts.
4. Propose resolution options
Possible actions:
- mark one page stale;
- split by scope;
- add caveat;
- demote claim to ambiguous;
- merge duplicate pages;
- create a decision note;
- request external source verification.
5. Apply only approved changes
In apply mode, patch only the approved resolution and append to wiki/log.md.
Output
## Conflict summary
## Claims in conflict
## Evidence
## Conflict type
## Resolution options
## Recommended review decision
## Approved patches
Safety gates
- Do not auto-resolve truth conflicts.
- Do not delete minority or outdated claims without preserving history.
- Do not present inference as extracted fact.
- Do not mark resolved conflicts verified without human approval.
- Re-verify a claim against current sources (not just the conflicting page's own text) before recommending which side of a stale or source-disagreement conflict to keep.