Cross Module Consistency Auditor

Overview

A structured audit skill for verifying cross-module consistency when a single change propagates across multiple modules, flows, reports, APIs, and copied implementations. This skill maps the blast radius of a change, defines consistency rules that must hold across all affected touchpoints, and produces a review strategy that avoids redundant effort on copy-paste code.

Core Value: Prevents the class of defects where "the fix was applied correctly in one place but missed or applied inconsistently elsewhere" -- the root cause behind aggregation mismatches, sign-inversion bugs, report-vs-drilldown discrepancies, and incomplete reverse-flow implementations.

Scope Boundary: This skill focuses on cross-module consistency of a known change. For single-function code quality, use critical-code-reviewer. For data migration QA, use migration-validation-explorer. For incident root cause analysis, use incident-rca-specialist.

When to Use

• A specification change affects multiple screens, reports, APIs, or batch jobs
• The same logic must be replicated across multiple flows (e.g., 6 transaction types)
• Refund / void / cancellation / correction requires sign inversion or reverse journaling
• Report totals and drill-down totals must reconcile
• A canonical implementation was copied to multiple locations and you need an efficient review strategy
• A DB schema change propagates to views, stored procedures, APIs, and UI
• You need to verify that state transition rules are enforced consistently at every entry point
• Tax or rounding logic must be identical across all calculation paths

Prerequisites

• Change specification available: A description of what is changing (feature spec, ticket, PR description)
• Module inventory accessible: Ability to identify affected modules, files, or services
• Output specifications available: Report definitions, API contracts, UI mockups, or export formats
• Existing tests identifiable: Access to test suites or test case documentation

Inputs

• Change specification or feature description
• Implementation target list (modules, files, services)
• Related module inventory
• Report / API / UI output specifications
• Existing test cases or test suites
• (Optional) Prior review findings or RCA reports

Outputs

1. Change Impact Map -- Visualizes the change kernel, source of truth, and all affected modules/outputs/tests/docs
2. Cross-Module Consistency Matrix -- Rules x modules grid showing expected vs actual behavior and gaps
3. Copy Propagation Review Plan -- Efficient review strategy separating canonical review from diff-only review
4. Cross-Module Test Checklist -- Consistency rules converted to testable assertions with tiers and owners
5. Open Questions / Missing Modules List -- Unresolved items and modules that may be affected but lack confirmation (recorded as an appendix in assets/impact_map_template.md)

Workflows

Workflow 1: Define the Change Kernel (変更核定義)

Identify the atomic unit of change and its canonical representation.

1. Extract the minimal change unit from the specification:
   • New line item type (e.g., adjustment, correction, refund)
   • New calculation rule (e.g., rounding, tax, discount)
   • New status or state transition
   • New aggregation rule or filter condition
   • Schema modification (column addition, type change, constraint)
   • Semantic change (e.g., timestamp meaning shifts from "created" to "submitted")
2. Identify the source of truth -- the single authoritative location where this logic is defined or should be defined
3. Document the change kernel using:
   • What: Precise description of the change
   • Where: Source of truth file/module/function
   • Why: Business requirement driving the change
   • Invariant: The consistency rule that must hold everywhere this change touches
4. If the change kernel is compound (multiple independent changes bundled), decompose into separate kernels and process each independently

Workflow 2: Apply Impact Lenses (影響レンズ適用)

Systematically expand the blast radius using eight impact lenses.

1. For each lens below, ask "Does this change affect [lens area]?" and list affected components:
   • Input flows: Forms, API endpoints, file imports, message consumers that create or modify data
   • Persistence: Database writes, cache updates, event stores, audit logs
   • Aggregation: Summation, grouping, rollup, materialized views, batch calculations
   • Display / Reports: UI screens, dashboards, PDF reports, Excel exports, email notifications
   • API / Export: REST/GraphQL responses, file exports, webhook payloads, integration feeds
   • Reverse flow: Refund, void, cancellation, deletion, undo, correction, reversal journal entries
   • Permission / Visibility: Role-based access, field-level security, tenant isolation, data masking
   • Downstream jobs: Batch processes, scheduled tasks, sync jobs, event-driven subscribers, external system integrations
2. For each affected component, record:
   • Module/file name
   • Whether it reads or writes the affected data
   • Whether it contains a copy of the logic or references the source of truth
3. Load references/change_impact_analysis_guide.md for detailed techniques on tracing propagation paths

Workflow 3: Build the Impact Map (Impact Map作成)

Create a structured impact map from the lens analysis.

1. Use the template from assets/impact_map_template.md
2. Fill in all sections:
   • Change Kernel: From Workflow 1
   • Source of Truth: Canonical implementation location
   • Affected Modules: Grouped by lens category (input/persistence/aggregation/display/API/reverse/permission/downstream)
   • Affected Outputs: Reports, API responses, exports, notifications
   • Affected Tests: Unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, manual test cases
   • Affected Documentation: Technical specs, API docs, user guides, runbooks
   • Risk Notes: Modules with high copy count, modules with no test coverage, modules owned by other teams
3. Generate a dependency summary:
   • Count of affected modules per lens
   • Count of copy-paste implementations vs shared-reference implementations
   • Identify modules with no current test coverage for the affected behavior
4. Flag any modules where impact is uncertain with [NEEDS CONFIRMATION]

Workflow 4: Define Consistency Rules (Consistency Rules定義)

Define the rules that must hold across all affected modules.

1. Load references/consistency_rule_catalog.md for the full category list
2. For each applicable category, define specific rules for this change:
   • Aggregation totals: Sum of parts equals whole; included/excluded items are consistent
   • Status transitions: Allowed transitions are identical at every entry point; guard conditions match
   • Sign inversion: Positive/negative symmetry for forward/reverse flows
   • Tax / Rounding: Same calculation method, same precision, same rounding direction everywhere
   • Visibility / Permission: Same data is visible/hidden to the same roles across all views
   • Naming / Constants: Enum values, status codes, error codes are consistent
   • Report vs Drill-down: Summary totals match the sum of detail rows
3. Load references/aggregation_reconciliation_guide.md for aggregation-specific rules
4. Load references/reverse_flow_checklist.md for reverse-flow-specific rules
5. Populate the consistency matrix using assets/consistency_matrix_template.md:
   • One row per module/flow/report/API
   • Columns: Rule, Expected Behavior, Current State, Gap, Owner
6. Mark each cell as: PASS / FAIL / NOT TESTED / NOT APPLICABLE

Workflow 5: Design Copy Propagation Review Strategy (Copy Propagationレビュー戦略)

Create an efficient review plan for copied implementations.

1. Load references/copy_propagation_strategy.md
2. Identify the canonical implementation -- the one copy that will receive full, thorough review
3. For all other copies, determine:
   • Allowed differences: Intentional variations (different entity type, different field names, different error messages)
   • Required sameness: Logic that must be identical (calculation, validation, rounding, sign handling)
4. Define the review approach:
   • Canonical: Full line-by-line review with test verification
   • Copy targets: Diff-only review against canonical, focusing on required-sameness sections
   • Exception documentation: Record every detected difference and classify as allowed or suspicious
5. Populate the template from assets/copy_propagation_review_template.md
6. Define the recheck trigger: conditions under which all copies must be re-reviewed from scratch (e.g., canonical implementation changes fundamentally)
7. Assess extraction threshold: if copy count exceeds 3 and allowed differences are minimal, recommend extracting shared logic into a common module

Workflow 6: Convert to Test Checklist (テスト観点変換)

Transform consistency rules into a testable checklist.

1. For each consistency rule from Workflow 4, create test assertions:
   • Cross-module assertion: Same input produces same output across all modules
   • Totals reconciliation: Report total equals sum of drill-down rows
   • Sign inversion check: Forward amount + reverse amount = 0 (or net expected value)
   • Before/after snapshot diff: State before change vs after change matches specification
   • Report vs drill-down match: Summary report numbers reconcile with detail views
   • Reverse flow symmetry: Create/refund, entry/void produce symmetric results
2. Assign each test to a tier:
   • Unit: Can be tested within a single module
   • Integration: Requires two or more modules interacting
   • E2E: Requires full system flow from input to output
   • Manual: Requires human verification (UI layout, report formatting)
3. Define test data requirements:
   • Standard case data set
   • Boundary case data set (zero amounts, maximum values, empty collections)
   • Reverse flow data set (refund after payment, void after entry)
4. Populate the template from assets/cross_module_test_checklist_template.md
5. Assign owners and priority based on gap analysis from Workflow 4

Resources

Resource	Type	Purpose	When to Load
references/change_impact_analysis_guide.md	Reference	Source of truth identification, propagation path tracing, upstream/downstream distinction	Workflow 2
references/consistency_rule_catalog.md	Reference	Full catalog of consistency rule categories with examples	Workflow 4
references/copy_propagation_strategy.md	Reference	Canonical review, diff review, exception handling, extraction threshold	Workflow 5
references/aggregation_reconciliation_guide.md	Reference	Total vs subtotal vs drill-down reconciliation, refund/void reversal rules	Workflow 4
references/reverse_flow_checklist.md	Reference	Create/update/delete symmetry, entry/refund/void/suspend patterns	Workflow 4
assets/impact_map_template.md	Template	Change impact map with all sections	Workflow 3
assets/consistency_matrix_template.md	Template	Cross-module consistency matrix	Workflow 4
assets/copy_propagation_review_template.md	Template	Copy propagation review plan	Workflow 5
assets/cross_module_test_checklist_template.md	Template	Test checklist derived from consistency rules	Workflow 6

Worked Example: Multi-Flow Rounding Change

This example illustrates the full workflow for a cash rounding rule change that affects 6 transaction flows.

Scenario: A POS system needs to add cash rounding (round to nearest 0.05) to all cash payment transactions. The system has 6 transaction flows: Sale, Return, Exchange, Layaway Payment, Layaway Pickup, and Account Payment.

Step 1 -- Change Kernel:

• What: Insert cash rounding adjustment line when payment method is cash
• Where: payment_calculator.apply_cash_rounding() (source of truth)
• Invariant: rounded_total = round_to_increment(original_total, Decimal("0.05")) and adjustment = rounded_total - original_total (use decimal/fixed-point arithmetic — never float for monetary calculations)

Step 2 -- Impact Lenses:

• Input flows: 6 transaction entry screens
• Persistence: transaction_lines table, adjustment_lines table
• Aggregation: Daily cash summary, shift report, GL posting
• Display: Receipt, transaction detail screen
• API: POS-to-HQ sync payload
• Reverse flow: Return must reverse the rounding adjustment
• Permission: N/A (all cashiers see rounding)
• Downstream: HQ consolidation, tax filing extract

Step 3 -- Impact Map: 6 input modules, 2 persistence modules, 3 aggregation modules, 4 display modules, 1 API module, 1 reverse flow module = 17 total touchpoints.

Step 4 -- Consistency Rules:

• Rule 1: All 6 flows use identical rounding formula
• Rule 2: Rounding adjustment appears as a distinct line item (not merged into product lines)
• Rule 3: Return flow reverses rounding with opposite sign
• Rule 4: Daily cash summary includes rounding adjustments in total
• Rule 5: Receipt displays rounding adjustment as separate line
• Rule 6: HQ sync payload includes rounding adjustment line

Step 5 -- Copy Propagation Review:

• Canonical: Sale flow (full review)
• Copy targets: Return, Exchange, Layaway Payment, Layaway Pickup, Account Payment (diff review)
• Allowed differences: Transaction type enum, flow-specific validation
• Required sameness: Rounding formula, adjustment line creation, sign handling

Step 6 -- Test Checklist:

• Unit: Rounding formula produces correct result for boundary values (0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05)
• Integration: Each flow creates correct adjustment line in DB
• E2E: Receipt total matches DB total for each flow
• Cross-module: Daily summary total = sum of all transaction totals (including rounding adjustments)
• Reverse: Sale(100.03) + Return(100.03) rounding adjustments net to zero

Best Practices

Source of Truth Discipline

• Every piece of logic should have exactly one source of truth
• Copies should be documented and tracked in the impact map
• When copy count exceeds 3 with minimal allowed differences, recommend extraction to shared module
• Review the source of truth first and most thoroughly; review copies via diff

Completeness Over Depth

• It is more important to identify all affected modules than to deeply analyze one module
• Use the 8 impact lenses systematically -- do not skip lenses because they "probably" do not apply
• Flag uncertain modules with [NEEDS CONFIRMATION] rather than omitting them
• An incomplete impact map is the primary cause of post-deployment consistency bugs

Reverse Flow Is Not Optional

• Every forward flow that creates data should have an identified reverse flow
• If no reverse flow exists, document this as a gap (it may be intentional or it may be a missing requirement)
• Reverse flows must be sign-symmetric: the sum of forward and reverse operations should produce the expected net result
• Test reverse flows with the same rigor as forward flows

Consistency Rules Must Be Testable

• A consistency rule that cannot be expressed as a pass/fail assertion is too vague
• Each rule should reference specific modules, specific fields, and specific expected values
• Prefer automated assertions over manual verification
• Every FAIL in the consistency matrix should produce a ticket or action item with an owner