Document Parameter Consistency Review

Problem

Engineering design documents often repeat the same parameter across reports or chapters, such as normal storage level, total storage capacity, design discharge, dam crest elevation, and installed capacity. Manual review requires a maintained parameter list, entity disambiguation, and localization of whether a conflict is intra-chapter, cross-chapter, or cross-document, which can easily miss cross-document references.

How the skill works

auto-parameter-consistency-review performs consistency checks on .docx documents (.doc can be converted or parsed in a suitable environment) without relying on parameter tables, feature sheets, or external knowledge bases. It extracts parameter name, value, and unit patterns from prose, tables, and composite dimensions; normalizes units and parameter names; and groups entries by entity + parameter name. Only parameters that appear at least twice are reported. Same-named parameters for different structures, equipment instances, schemes, or operating conditions are separated, preventing direct comparison between Gate A and Gate B or a main pipe and a branch pipe.

Key steps include:
- Parsing documents into blocks JSON, and splitting by chapter when the result exceeds roughly 100k characters.
- Building a shared multi-document context covering the project, structures, equipment, scheme status, and document discipline.
- Running a secondary conflict review that filters single-character noise and preserves cross-document constraints for global parameters.
- Using LLM review to validate grouping, add non-standard parameter expressions, and mark the minimum conflict scope.
- Generating review-result.md and review-result.xlsx with statistics, conflicts, review-required items, and evidence locations.

Boundary and notes

The skill is best suited for repeated parameters across engineering texts, especially water levels, storage, discharge, elevations, installed capacity, meteorological, seismic, electromechanical, and structural parameters. It does not review single-occurrence parameters or invent values absent from the documents. When ownership, instance, scheme, or condition is unclear, it reports the item for review instead of marking it as a definitive conflict.