chess/docs/review/consistency-report.md

Consistency Report - Chess Game Planning Review

Review Date: 2025-11-22 Swarm ID: swarm-1763844423540-zqi6om5ev Reviewer: Reviewer Agent Status: ⚠️ CANNOT ASSESS - NO ARTIFACTS

---

Executive Summary

FINDING: Consistency review cannot be performed because no planning artifacts exist to compare.

Expected Consistency Checks:

• Cross-document naming conventions
• Component interface alignment
• Data model consistency
• Architecture-to-implementation alignment

Actual State:

• ❌ No documents to check for consistency
• ❌ No naming conventions to validate
• ❌ No interfaces to compare
• ❌ No data models to verify

---

1. Naming Convention Consistency

1.1 Component Names (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no components defined

Expected Checks:

• Consistent naming across architecture, code templates, and documentation
• Standardized casing (camelCase, PascalCase, kebab-case)
• Clear, descriptive names without ambiguity

Actual: N/A - No components exist

1.2 Function/Method Names (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no code templates created

Expected Checks:

• Verb-noun naming patterns
• Consistent action words (get, set, validate, calculate)
• Matching signatures across modules

Actual: N/A - No code exists

1.3 Data Model Field Names (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no data models defined

Expected Checks:

• Consistent field naming across board state, pieces, moves
• Type consistency (string, number, boolean)
• No conflicting property names

Actual: N/A - No data models exist

---

2. Interface Alignment

2.1 Component Interfaces (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no interfaces defined

Expected Checks:

• Board component exposes required methods
• Piece components implement consistent interface
• Game controller coordinates all components
• Event handlers match expected signatures

Actual: N/A - No interfaces documented

2.2 API Contracts (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no APIs specified

Expected Checks:

• Move validation API consistent with game rules
• State management API matches architecture
• UI event handlers match expected parameters

Actual: N/A - No APIs defined

---

3. Data Model Consistency

3.1 Board Representation (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no board model defined

Expected Checks:

• Consistent board representation across modules
• Coordinate system used uniformly (algebraic notation, array indices)
• Board state structure matches everywhere

Actual: N/A - No board model exists

3.2 Piece Representation (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no piece model defined

Expected Checks:

• Piece objects have consistent structure
• Color/type enumerations match across code
• Position tracking consistent

Actual: N/A - No piece model exists

3.3 Move Representation (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no move model defined

Expected Checks:

• Move objects structure consistent
• Special move flags documented uniformly
• Move history format standardized

Actual: N/A - No move model exists

---

4. Architecture-Implementation Alignment

4.1 Component Structure (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no architecture or implementation plan exists

Expected Checks:

• File structure matches architectural design
• Module dependencies align with architecture diagram
• Separation of concerns implemented as designed

Actual: N/A - No architecture or implementation plan

4.2 Data Flow (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no data flow defined

Expected Checks:

• User input → validation → state update flow consistent
• Event propagation matches architectural design
• State management pattern applied uniformly

Actual: N/A - No data flow documented

---

5. Documentation Consistency

5.1 Terminology (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no documentation exists

Expected Checks:

• Chess terms used consistently (checkmate, castling, en passant)
• Technical terms standardized (component, module, handler)
• Glossary of terms defined and followed

Actual: N/A - No documentation

5.2 Code Examples (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no examples provided

Expected Checks:

• Code examples match templates
• Example usage consistent with API docs
• Patterns demonstrated uniformly

Actual: N/A - No code examples

---

6. Cross-Document References

6.1 Link Validity (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no documents to link

Expected Checks:

• Architecture references match requirements
• Implementation guide references correct architecture sections
• Test specs reference correct components

Actual: N/A - No documents exist

6.2 Version Alignment (❌ NOT APPLICABLE)

Status: Cannot assess - no versioned artifacts

Expected Checks:

• All documents at same version/timestamp
• No outdated references
• Change log synchronized

Actual: N/A - No versioning possible

---

7. Inconsistencies Found

Count: 0 inconsistencies (because 0 artifacts exist)

Categories:

• Naming conflicts: N/A
• Interface mismatches: N/A
• Data model conflicts: N/A
• Documentation discrepancies: N/A

---

8. Consistency Score

Category	Assessment
Naming Conventions	⚠️ N/A - No artifacts
Interface Alignment	⚠️ N/A - No interfaces
Data Model Consistency	⚠️ N/A - No models
Architecture Alignment	⚠️ N/A - No architecture
Documentation Consistency	⚠️ N/A - No docs
OVERALL	⚠️ CANNOT ASSESS

---

9. Recommendations

When Planning Artifacts Are Created

Once planning documents are produced, perform these consistency checks:

1. Create Consistency Matrix

   • Map all component names across documents
   • Verify terminology usage
   • Check interface contracts

2. Validate Data Models

   • Ensure board/piece/move structures match everywhere
   • Verify coordinate systems are uniform
   • Check type consistency

3. Review Cross-References

   • Validate all document links
   • Ensure architecture → implementation alignment
   • Verify test specs match components

4. Check Code Templates

   • Ensure templates follow documented patterns
   • Verify naming conventions applied
   • Validate against architecture

---

10. Sign-Off

Reviewer: Reviewer Agent Consistency Status: ⚠️ CANNOT ASSESS - NO ARTIFACTS Recommendation: Re-run consistency review after planning deliverables exist

---

Note: This report serves as a template for what consistency checks will be performed once planning artifacts are created. Currently, there is nothing to assess for consistency.