Continuity Checker
Catch the timeline, detail and knowledge contradictions before a reader does.
Audits a manuscript or outline for continuity across timeline, physical detail, character knowledge, world rules and viewpoint, reporting each finding with severity, both conflicting locations and the cheapest fix that preserves the scenes written after it.
Ready-to-use prompt
The prompt
Copy it as-is, then swap the bracketed placeholders for your own details before running it.
Role: You are a continuity editor auditing a text for internal contradictions.
Context:
- The manuscript, chapters or outline to audit: {{text}}
- Established canon or series bible, if any: {{canon}}
- Point-of-view structure and timeline conventions: {{conventions}}
- Known changes made during drafting: {{known_changes}}
Task: Report findings in five categories.
1. Timeline: events out of order, durations that do not add up, seasons, ages and travel times that conflict.
2. Physical detail: appearance, objects, locations and injuries that change without cause.
3. Character knowledge: any moment where a character knows or does not know something the text has not supported.
4. World rules: capabilities, technology or magic used inconsistently with earlier limits.
5. Voice and point of view: head-hopping, tense slips, and narration outside the viewpoint character.
For each finding give: category, severity as breaking, noticeable or minor, the two locations that conflict, the contradiction stated plainly, and the cheapest fix, preferring changes to the earlier mention when later scenes depend on it.
Then return:
- A canon table of every fact worth locking, so future chapters can be checked against it.
- Findings that are ambiguous rather than wrong, listed separately as questions.
Rules:
- Quote or reference the exact lines involved; never report a contradiction without both sides.
- Do not flag deliberate ambiguity, unreliable narration or foreshadowing as an error.
- Never rewrite prose beyond the minimum the fix requires.
- If the text is too long, audit in chapter batches and carry the canon table forward.Estimated results
Editor's note
Why this prompt matters
Continuity errors are cheap to fix and expensive to find, which is exactly the shape of problem a model is good at. The trap is a checker that reports fifty findings, half of them foreshadowing or deliberate ambiguity it mistook for error. This prompt constrains that by requiring both sides of every contradiction to be quoted, by excluding unreliable narration explicitly, and by separating ambiguous findings into a questions list instead of the error list. The canon table it produces is the durable output: run the audit in chapter batches, carry the table forward, and you finish with a series bible you did not have to write.
Anatomy
Prompt engineering breakdown
Role
Context
Goal
Constraints
Output format
What you'll get
Expected output
Findings in five categories — timeline, physical detail, character knowledge, world rules, and voice or point of view — each with severity, the two conflicting locations, the contradiction stated plainly and the cheapest fix, plus a canon table of facts worth locking and a separate list of ambiguous findings as questions.
Under the hood
Why this prompt works
Requiring both conflicting locations is what makes the report trustworthy: a contradiction quoted from one side only is usually the model misremembering rather than the manuscript being wrong. Preferring fixes to the earlier mention reflects how drafts actually work, since later scenes tend to depend on the detail and changing the first reference is almost always cheaper. The batch-and-carry canon table keeps long manuscripts within context limits without losing the facts already established.
Model fit
Best AI models for this prompt
Claude
Best here. Highest accuracy on knowledge and timeline contradictions across long texts.
ChatGPT
Fast across long manuscripts; occasionally reports non-issues worth filtering.
Gemini
Useful for very long manuscripts pasted in bulk batches.
When to use
- Before submitting, querying or publishing a completed draft.
- After heavy structural revision or chapter reordering.
- When writing a sequel and needing prior canon locked.
When not to use
- On a first draft still changing shape; wait until structure settles.
- For style or line editing, which need a different pass.
- For factual accuracy in non-fiction, which needs sources, not consistency checks.
Get more from it
Pro tips
- 1
Run it in chapter batches and carry the canon table forward between runs.
- 2
Fix the earlier mention where later scenes depend on the detail — usually cheaper.
- 3
Read the ambiguous findings closely; several will be real problems in disguise.
- 4
Re-run after structural edits, since reordering chapters creates knowledge errors.
Don't ship this
Common mistakes
✗ Running it on a first draft still changing shape.
Fix — Wait until structure settles, then audit.
✗ Accepting findings with only one location quoted.
Fix — Require both sides of every contradiction before acting.
✗ Letting the checker rewrite prose.
Fix — Restrict it to the minimum change the fix requires.
People also ask
Frequently asked questions
Q.How long a text can it check at once?
Work in chapter batches and carry the canon table forward between runs. Auditing an entire novel in one pass reliably drops findings from the middle regardless of the stated context limit.
Q.Will it flag deliberate ambiguity as an error?
It is instructed not to, and to place uncertain cases in a separate questions list instead. Read that list carefully — genuine problems often appear there before they appear in the findings.
Q.When should I run a continuity pass?
After structure has settled and before submission or publication, and again after any major reordering of chapters, since moving scenes creates knowledge errors that did not exist before.