| name | po-grill-with-docs |
| description | Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan against the project's existing domain model, sharpen fuzzy terminology, and inline-update CONTEXT.md / ADRs as decisions crystallise. Triggers: "grill this plan", "stress-test the design", "challenge my assumptions", "write the ADR", "what terms am I using wrong". |
Grill With Docs
Interview the user relentlessly about every aspect of their plan until a shared understanding is reached. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide a 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.
Domain awareness
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation.
File structure
Most repos have a single context:
/
├── CONTEXT.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 contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│ ├── ordering/
│ │ ├── CONTEXT.md
│ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions
│ └── billing/
│ ├── CONTEXT.md
│ └── 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.
Use the glossary's vocabulary
When writing about a domain, use the glossary's terms. Don't introduce "FooBarHandler" if the glossary calls it the "Order intake module." Consistent terminology is the point.
Flag ADR conflicts
If a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Don't list every theoretical conflict an ADR forbids.
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?"
Side effects (inline)
Update CONTEXT.md inline
When a term is resolved, update CONTEXT.md right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen.
CONTEXT.md should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat CONTEXT.md as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.
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.
Source / license
Adapted from mattpocock/skills · grill-with-docs, MIT.
