[Schema Consistency] 🔍 Schema Consistency Check - 2026-07-16

[github-actions[bot]]

Summary

• Inconsistencies Found: 4
• Categories Analyzed: Schema, Parser/Compiler, Documentation, Workflows
• Strategy Used: Cross-surface engine/docs and deprecated alias drift spot check
• New Strategy: YES

Critical Issues

1. Runtime supports , but schema/docs still omit it from the built-in engine catalog

   • Runtime comment/catalog:
   • Real workflow usage: contains
   • Schema check: contains built-in engine names like , , , , , , but no
   • Docs check: lists Copilot/Claude/Codex/Gemini/OpenCode/Pi only
   • Impact: users can see working runtime/workflow support for an engine that the schema and docs do not advertise, causing false validation/documentation expectations.

2. Top-level frontmatter docs omit even though deeper docs and schema surface it

   • Missing from overview docs: has but no
   • Present in detailed docs: , ,
   • Present in engine docs:
   • Impact: users reading the concise frontmatter reference do not discover a documented supported engine field.

Documentation Gaps

1. ** is missing the runtime-supported engine**

   • File:
   • Current table and intro only enumerate Copilot, Claude, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.

2. ** still surfaces deprecated **

   • Canonical key is
   • Parser explicitly treats underscore form as backward-compatible alias and warns to rename:
   • Detailed docs still include example near
   • Impact: generated/docs examples keep reintroducing deprecated syntax.

Schema Improvements Needed

1. Add anywhere the schema describes the built-in engine set
   • Current schema text/search results show no match in
   • This leaves schema guidance behind actual runtime support.

Parser Updates Required

1. No parser bug confirmed in this run, but parser behavior and docs are misaligned for deprecated alias messaging
   • Parser behavior is clear and correct: keeps canonical and underscore form deprecated.
   • Documentation/generated schema examples should align with that canonical parser behavior.

Workflow Violations

1. No hard invalid workflow frontmatter was confirmed from source workflows in this run.
2. **However, compiled workflows prove real runtime use of **, which increases confidence that the schema/docs omission is user-facing and not theoretical.

Recommendations

1. Update to include wherever built-in engines are enumerated.
2. Update schema descriptions/examples in so the built-in engine catalog matches runtime support.
3. Add to the concise reference alongside .
4. Stop surfacing in ; keep it mentioned only as deprecated compatibility syntax, not as a primary example.

Strategy Performance

• Strategy Used: Cross-surface engine/docs and deprecated alias drift spot check
• Findings: 4
• Effectiveness: HIGH
• Should Reuse: YES

Next Steps

• Fix schema descriptions for built-in engine IDs
• Update engine reference docs to include
• Update frontmatter reference docs to mention
• Remove/prominently de-emphasize deprecated examples

Generated by ✅ Schema Consistency Checker · 8.65 AIC · ⌖ 10.8 AIC · ⊞ 7.3K · ◷

• expires on Jul 16, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC-08:00

[github-actions[bot]]

This discussion has been marked as outdated by Schema Consistency Checker.

A newer discussion is available at Discussion #46146.