Detect conflicts between design and code sources — Figma vs. implementation, documentation vs. reality. Surface discrepancies for adjudication.
Read context/ds-context-guide.md for environment detection and configuration. Read context/governance-philosophy.md for the contract-not-collection philosophy.
Detect conflicts between design system sources. When Figma says one thing and code says another, passive aggregation just publishes the disagreement. This skill surfaces discrepancies and recommends which source should be authoritative — turning silent drift into visible decisions.
$ARGUMENTS = optional scope (e.g., "Button component", "color tokens", "all components"). Default: audit what's accessible.
Check available sources. This skill needs at least two sources to compare. Check for:
If only one source is available, report what's found and note that comparison requires a second source. If none, note that comparison requires at least two sources; report available single-source data with parity assessment marked as incomplete.
Ask about authority model (first use only): "When design specs and code disagree, which source should be considered canonical? Options: design (Figma) leads, code leads, documentation leads, or decide case-by-case."
Launch source-comparator agent. Read ../agents/source-comparator.md for the full methodology. Pass it:
Review findings and add recommendations. For each conflict:
Suggest recording resolutions. For each adjudicated conflict, suggest running /ds-decision-record to capture why one source was chosen over the other.
Follow the audit template from output-patterns.md. Group by severity (critical/moderate/low). Include a summary count and the authority model used.