grill-with-docs

name	grill-with-docs
description	Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (docs/GLOSSARY.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.

Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.

If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.

Inputs

Layer	File	Scope	Why
Reference	docs/GLOSSARY.md	Language + Relationships	The canonical terms to challenge the user's wording against
Reference	docs/GLOSSARY-MAP.md	Full file, if present	Tells you the repo is multi-context and where each glossary lives
Reference	docs/adr/*.md	Only ADRs touching the area under discussion	Decisions already settled; don't re-litigate them
Reference	CONTEXT.md	"Key Decisions" only	Project-level constraints. Not the glossary — different file, different schema
Working	The user's plan	Full	What's being grilled

Domain awareness

During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:

File structure

Most repos have a single context:

/
├── CONTEXT.md                        ← project orientation, not the glossary
├── docs/
│   ├── GLOSSARY.md                   ← the domain language
│   └── adr/
│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/

If docs/GLOSSARY-MAP.md exists, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:

/
├── docs/
│   ├── GLOSSARY-MAP.md
│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   ├── GLOSSARY.md
│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
│   └── billing/
│       ├── GLOSSARY.md
│       └── docs/adr/

Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no docs/GLOSSARY.md exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no docs/adr/ exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.

Pre-4.3 repos kept the glossary at the root as CONTEXT.md (with a CONTEXT-MAP.md), which collided with Attacca's project-orientation CONTEXT.md. If you find a root CONTEXT.md whose content is a ## Language glossary rather than Project/Stack/Key Decisions, offer to move it to docs/GLOSSARY.md. Don't move it silently.

During the session

Challenge against the glossary

When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in docs/GLOSSARY.md, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"

Sharpen fuzzy language

When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."

Discuss concrete scenarios

When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.

Cross-reference with code

When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"

Update the glossary inline

When a term is resolved, update docs/GLOSSARY.md right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md.

docs/GLOSSARY.md should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat it as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else. Project decisions go in CONTEXT.md; architectural trade-offs go in an ADR.

Offer ADRs sparingly

Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:

1. Hard to reverse — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
2. Surprising without context — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
3. The result of a real trade-off — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons

If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in ADR-FORMAT.md.

---

Adapted from mattpocock/skills.