Doc Conflict Engine

Shared conflict-detection contract for workflows that ingest external content into .planning/ (e.g., /gsd-import, /gsd-ingest-docs). Defines the report format, severity semantics, and safety-gate behavior. The specific checks that populate each severity bucket are workflow-specific and defined by the calling workflow.

Severity Semantics

• [BLOCKER] — Unsafe to proceed. The workflow MUST exit without writing any destination files. Used for contradictions of locked decisions, missing prerequisites, and impossible targets.
• [WARNING] — Ambiguous or partially overlapping. The workflow MUST surface the warning and obtain explicit user approval before writing. Never auto-approve.
• [INFO] — Informational only. No gate; no user prompt required. Included in the report for transparency.

Report Format

Plain-text, never markdown tables (no |---|). The report is rendered to the user verbatim.

## Conflict Detection Report

### BLOCKERS ({N})

[BLOCKER] {Short title}
  Found: {what the incoming content says}
  Expected: {what existing project context requires}
  → {Specific action to resolve}

### WARNINGS ({N})

[WARNING] {Short title}
  Found: {what was detected}
  Impact: {what could go wrong}
  → {Suggested action}

### INFO ({N})

[INFO] {Short title}
  Note: {relevant information}

Every entry requires Found: plus one of Expected:/Impact:/Note: plus (for BLOCKER/WARNING) a → remediation line.

Safety Gate

If any [BLOCKER] exists:

Display:

GSD > BLOCKED: {N} blockers must be resolved before {operation} can proceed.

Exit WITHOUT writing any destination files. The gate must hold regardless of WARNING/INFO counts.

If only WARNINGS and/or INFO (no blockers):

Render the full report, then prompt for approval via the approve-revise-abort or yes-no pattern from references/gate-prompts.md. Respect text mode (see the workflow's own text-mode handling). If the user aborts, exit cleanly with a cancellation message.

If the report is empty (no entries in any bucket):

Proceed silently or display GSD > No conflicts detected. Either is acceptable; workflows choose based on verbosity context.

Workflow Responsibilities

Each workflow that consumes this contract must define:

1. Its own check list per bucket — which conditions are BLOCKER vs WARNING vs INFO. These are domain-specific (plan ingestion checks are not doc ingestion checks).
2. The loaded context — what it reads (ROADMAP.md, PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, CONTEXT.md, intel files) before running checks.
3. The operation noun — substituted into the BLOCKED banner (import, ingest, etc.).

The workflow MUST NOT:

• Introduce new severity levels beyond BLOCKER/WARNING/INFO
• Render the report as a markdown table
• Write any destination file when BLOCKERs exist
• Auto-approve past WARNINGs without user input

Anti-Patterns

Do NOT:

• Use markdown tables (|---|) in the conflict report — use plain-text labels as shown above
• Bypass the safety gate when BLOCKERs exist — no exceptions for "minor" blockers
• Fold WARNINGs into INFO to skip the approval prompt — if user input is needed, it is a WARNING
• Re-invent severity labels per workflow — the three-level taxonomy is fixed