From omni
Guides requirement boundary consistency checks for design reviews: detects scope creep, requirement coverage, semantic consistency; specifies code reading for business scenario affiliation and severity grading (blocking/warning/info).
npx claudepluginhub zte-aicloud/co-omnispec --plugin omniThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
- **Scope Creep 检测**：目标文档中每个变更点，能否在参照文档中找到对应业务需求依据？
Verifies implemented code against design.md, implementation.md, and tasks.md docs. Detects missing implementations, spec deviations, extra code, doc inconsistencies, outdated docs. Use after tasks or mid-feature.
Validates requirements documents for EARS compliance, glossary consistency, completeness, testability, non-technical phrasing, and internal consistency including contradictions and gaps. Use after creating requirements.
Reviews Markdown design artifacts (proposals, specs, designs, tasks) for internal consistency, gaps, contradictions, and cross-artifact alignment.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
目的：仅凭文档描述无法判断一个类属于哪个业务路径。例如 LiteSummaryFileService 的文档描述是"按 FTP 汇总成功推送的网元"，与 spec.md 的"FTP 推送"场景语义上看起来匹配，无法发现越界。必须读取代码才能判断业务场景归属。
与 design-reviewer 的区分：
| Agent | 读代码的目的 | 读什么 |
|---|---|---|
| design-reviewer | 验证技术实现是否准确（调用链、方法签名） | 详细实现代码 |
| requirement-consistency-reviewer | 理解变更文件的业务场景归属 | 包路径、类注释、类级 JavaDoc，不读方法体 |
执行规则：
示例：读 LiteSummaryFileService 时，包路径 app.application.lite.service 和类注释揭示它服务于 Lite APP 定时备份，而非 USC 主流程的周期备份推送 → 判定 Scope Creep，blocking。
| 级别 | 示例 |
|---|---|
| blocking | 变更文件/类无 spec 中的需求依据、Scope Creep、关键诉求遗漏 |
| warning | 语义描述模糊、覆盖不完整 |
| info | 文字润色建议 |