| name | grill-with-docs |
| description | Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions, or asks to "grill me with docs" or "interview me about this". |
Grill With Docs
Interview the user relentlessly about every aspect of the plan until you reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one at a time. For each question, propose your recommended answer.
Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each before continuing.
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
Domain awareness
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
File structure
Most repos have a single context:
/
โโโ CONTEXT.md
โโโ docs/
โ โโโ adr/
โ โโโ 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
โ โโโ 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
โโโ src/
If a CONTEXT-MAP.md exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
/
โโโ CONTEXT-MAP.md
โโโ docs/
โ โโโ adr/ โ system-wide decisions
โโโ src/
โ โโโ ordering/
โ โ โโโ CONTEXT.md
โ โ โโโ docs/adr/ โ context-specific decisions
โ โโโ billing/
โ โโโ CONTEXT.md
โ โโโ docs/adr/
Create files lazily, only when you have something to write. If no CONTEXT.md exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no docs/adr/ exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
During the session
Challenge against the glossary
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in CONTEXT.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 CONTEXT.md inline
When a term is resolved, update CONTEXT.md right there. Don't batch them up, capture them as they happen. Use the format in CONTEXT-FORMAT.md.
Don't couple CONTEXT.md to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts.
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.
For a lightweight inline ADR (1โ3 sentences, captured during grilling), use ADR-FORMAT.md. For a heavyweight Nygard-style ADR with full context, consequences, and rejected alternatives, invoke /adr instead.
Pairs With
/improve-codebase-architecture: same grilling discipline applied to deepening candidates; shares CONTEXT.md upkeep/adr: heavyweight ADR generator when an inline 1โ3 sentence ADR isn't enough/naming: naming difficulty surfaces during grilling; /naming is the deeper diagnostic/research: when a question can't be resolved by interview or by reading code, externalise it
Adapted from mattpocock/skills.
