| name | grill-with-docs |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| description | Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (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. Asking multiple questions at once is bewildering.
If a fact can be found by exploring the codebase, look it up rather than asking me. The decisions, though, are mine — put each one to me and wait for my answer.
Do not act on the plan until I confirm we have reached a shared understanding.
Domain awareness
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
File structure
Most repos have a single glossary:
/
├── GLOSSARY.md
├── docs/
│ └── adr/
│ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/
If a CONTEXT-MAP.md exists at the root, the repo has multiple glossaries. The map points to where each one lives:
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│ └── 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 GLOSSARY.md exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no docs/adr/ exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
Other docs
A repo often has more markdown than GLOSSARY.md and ADRs — design notes, architecture overviews, runbooks, RFCs, often under docs/. Don't read them wholesale; that burns context. Instead, when a grilling question touches a topic, rg the docs for the relevant terms and read only the hits. Treat what you find as context to challenge against, not law — only GLOSSARY.md and ADRs are authoritative. If a doc contradicts the plan, surface it like any other conflict.
During the session
Challenge against the language
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in GLOSSARY.md, call it out immediately. "Your language 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 GLOSSARY.md inline
When a term is resolved, update GLOSSARY.md right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md.
Keep it devoid of implementation details. Do not treat GLOSSARY.md as a spec or scratch pad — it holds canonical terms and nothing else; everything else lives in ADRs or code.
Offer ADRs sparingly
Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
- Hard to reverse — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
- Surprising without context — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
- 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.
