grill-po

name	grill-po
description	Requirements grilling session with a Product Owner (or anyone in that role). Challenges plans against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (bounded-context files, Gherkin features, DMDs (Domain Model Decisions)) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when the user wants to discuss and capture requirements, stress-test a plan against the project's language, or refine feature scope.
version	0.1.0

Grill PO

Interview the user relentlessly about every aspect of their plan until you 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 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

Single-context repo:

/
├── bounded-context.md
├── docs/
│   └── features/
│       ├── place-order.feature
│       └── cancel-order.feature
└── src/

Multi-context mono-repo:

/
├── README.md                          ← contains "Bounded Contexts" section (context map)
├── AGENTS.md                          ← contains "Bounded Contexts" section (context map)
├── docs/
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   ├── ordering-bounded-context.md
│   │   └── docs/features/             ← context-specific features
│   └── billing/
│       └── billing-bounded-context.md

Create files lazily — only when you have something to write.

Detecting the structure:

• If a bounded-context.md exists at root → single context
• If *-bounded-context.md files exist elsewhere → multi-context; read the "Bounded Contexts" section of README.md or AGENTS.md for the context map
• If neither exists → create bounded-context.md lazily when the first term is resolved

When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.

During the Session

Challenge against the glossary

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

Also scan existing .feature files for terminology drift: if a scenario uses a term differently from the bounded-context file, surface it. "Your feature file says 'purchase' but the glossary defines that concept as 'order' — which should it be?"

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.

Update the bounded-context file inline

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

The bounded-context file must 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.

Document features as Gherkin

When a feature is agreed on, write or update a .feature file in docs/features/ (or the context-specific equivalent). Use standard Gherkin (Feature, Scenario, Given/When/Then). Rules:

• One .feature file per feature area, named after it (e.g. place-order.feature)
• Scenarios use domain language from the bounded-context file — no technical terms
• Scenarios are business-readable: a domain expert should be able to read and validate them
• Do not add scenarios for implementation details (e.g. HTTP status codes, database columns)
• Update existing scenarios when behavior changes — don't accumulate stale scenarios

Offer DMDs sparingly

Only offer to create a DMD 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 model it that 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 DMD. Use the format in dmd-format.md.