chess/planning/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.