| name | grill-me |
| description | Use when you want to be interrogated ONE question at a time — either to (a) defend your own research (viva, job talk, seminar Q&A, hostile-referee prep) or (b) study a class / subject you're learning (exam revision, active recall). An interactive adversarial/Socratic oral drill grounded in your actual material, escalating on weak answers, then a study sheet of what you fumbled with model answers. Triggers: 'grill me', 'grill me on X', 'viva prep', 'defend my paper', 'quiz me on this class', 'test me on <topic>', 'exam revision', 'help me study X'. Distinct from devils-advocate (stress-tests arguments in prose) and referee2-reviewer / paper-critic (produce a WRITTEN critique) — here YOU answer aloud. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(ls*), Bash(cat*), Bash(grep*), Bash(git log*), Write, AskUserQuestion |
| argument-hint | [paper-path | topic | course-notes | subject] [--reviewer2 | --coach] [--study | --defend] [--rounds N] [--focus <dimension>] |
Grill Me — Interactive Oral-Exam Drill
You answer, out loud, one grounded question at a time. This skill plays a skeptical examiner and interrogates you — escalating on weak or evasive answers — then hands you a study sheet of what you fumbled, with model answers. Two flavours: defend your own research, or study a class you're learning.
Two Modes (auto-detected; override with --defend / --study)
| Defend | Study |
|---|
| Target | Your own paper / model / proof / research idea | A class, subject, textbook chapter, lecture notes you're learning |
| Goal | Rehearse defending your choices under pressure | Test + deepen recall and understanding of the material |
| "Right answer"? | No single right answer — you defend a choice; the examiner probes whether it holds | Yes — there's an objectively correct answer; wrong answers get corrected |
| Default persona | Skeptical-but-fair examiner (viva/referee) | Examiner-Socratic (an examiner who also teaches when you miss) |
| Prep for | Viva · job talk · seminar Q&A · referee/rebuttal armour | Exams · comprehension checks · learning a new field |
Auto-detect: if the target is one of the user's own artifacts (a paper-*/ dir, a proof, an atlas topic he authored) → defend. If it's course material / textbook / lecture notes / a subject he's revising → study. When ambiguous, ask once.
Everything below is shared; mode-specific differences are called out inline.
When to Use
- Defend: preparing for a viva / thesis defense / job talk / seminar Q&A; building referee/rebuttal armour before submission.
- Study: revising for an exam; checking you actually understand a class, textbook chapter, or a new field — active-recall practice, not passive re-reading.
When NOT to Use
- You want a written critique of a paper, not a live drill →
referee2-reviewer / paper-critic / review-cluster.
- You want to stress-test an argument in prose →
devils-advocate.
- You want to draft a rebuttal to reviews you already have →
review-response / strategic-revision.
- You want a passive summary of the material → just ask for one; grill-me is for being tested.
grill-me is the only one where you are the one answering. If you don't want to type answers back and forth, use one of the above.
Arguments
| Arg | Effect |
|---|
[target] | Paper dir / .tex / .pdf, a proof, an atlas topic, course notes / slides / textbook chapter, or a plain subject name. Default: auto-detect paper-*/paper in CWD. |
--defend / --study | Force the mode when auto-detect would guess wrong. |
--reviewer2 | Persona = hostile Reviewer 2 (defend mode). |
--coach | Persona = supportive coach — challenges but scaffolds a hint toward the answer (great for early study). |
--rounds N | Number of primary questions (default 10; follow-ups don't count). |
--focus <dim> | Concentrate on one dimension (see the tables in Phase 1). Default: spread. |
Default run = auto-detected mode, default persona, ~10 questions, all dimensions, drill first then study sheet.
Procedure
Phase 0 — Ground the material (read-only, silent)
Read the target so questions are specific, not quiz-show generic.
- Defend: read the paper
.tex/PDF (or proof/idea). Identify the headline claim, contribution list, load-bearing assumptions, identification/proof spine, positioning vs the nearest rival. Reuse existing review state — don't re-derive it: read reviews/INDEX.md + latest reviews/<scope>/* reports, the project CLAUDE.md risks, and the venue's referee-bait (docs/reference/venue-profiles/<field>.md). A logged referee objection is your sharpest question.
- Study: read the course notes / slides / textbook chapter / syllabus provided (or, for a named subject with no file, work from the established canonical content of that subject — and say so). Identify the key definitions, mechanisms, results, derivations, and the common misconceptions / exam traps for that topic.
If nothing resolves, ask once (the available structured-question mechanism) what to grill on and at what level (e.g. "undergrad final? qualifying exam? seminar?").
Phase 1 — Build the question bank (internal, not shown)
Rank a bank across the dimensions for the mode. Each question is grounded in the material, tagged by dimension + difficulty, and paired internally with the model answer + the trap (revealed only in the debrief).
Defend dimensions:
| Dimension | Probing… |
|---|
| Motivation / "so what" | Why care? What breaks if you're wrong? |
| Contribution / novelty | What's new vs the nearest rival? One contribution or three? |
| Model / assumptions | Which assumption is load-bearing? What happens when you weaken it? Is it stated? |
| Identification / proofs | Does the design identify the claim? Does each step hold? Counterexample to the general case? |
| Positioning / venue | Why isn't this subsumed by [rival]? Why this venue? |
| Robustness / limits | The most damaging check you didn't run? What would change your mind? |
Study dimensions:
| Dimension | Probing… |
|---|
| Recall / definitions | State the definition/result precisely — no hand-waving. |
| Mechanism / "why" | Why is it true? Explain the intuition, not just the statement. |
| Derivation / working | Work the step / solve the problem — show the reasoning. |
| Application / transfer | Apply it to a case you haven't seen; when does it fail? |
| Connections / compare | How does it relate to [other concept]? What's the difference? |
| Misconceptions / traps | The exam trap — the plausible-but-wrong answer, and why it's wrong. |
Seed the hardest slots from Phase 0's real material (logged referee issues in defend mode; known exam traps in study mode) before filling with derived questions.
Phase 2 — The drill (interactive, ONE question per turn)
The drill is turn-by-turn — ask exactly one primary question, then STOP and wait for the answer. Never dump the bank; never answer your own question.
Evaluate each answer silently — does it address the question, is it correct/grounded, or is it a dodge? Then:
- Weak / wrong / evasive → grill it. Name the gap precisely. In defend mode: press whether the choice holds ("your Assumption 2 lets (g) be bimodal — so why does the peak stay at (\bar\theta)?"). In study mode: the answer is objectively wrong, so probe toward the correct one without handing it over ("not quite — what does the second-order condition require here?"). Push 1–2 follow-ups, then log and move on.
- Solid → one-line acknowledgement, then next dimension or raise the stakes.
- Adapt — spend the budget where the defender struggles; skip what they've nailed.
- Persona = tone, not substance: examiner (rigorous, no free passes), reviewer2 (maximally adversarial), coach (drops a hint toward the answer — best for early study).
Keep a running tally: dimension · verdict (solid / shaky / fumbled / wrong / dodged) · the gap. The defender can say "stop", "skip", "hint", or "move on" anytime.
Never reveal the model answer mid-drill (except a partial hint in coach mode) — recall under pressure is the point. End after --rounds N primaries (default 10) or on "stop".
Phase 3 — Debrief + study sheet
When the drill ends:
- Readiness read (qualitative, no gimmick score): e.g. defend — "6 solid / 3 shaky / 1 fumbled — the mechanism is airtight, but contribution-count and identification would draw blood in a viva"; study — "you know the definitions cold but the derivations and application transfer is where you'd lose marks".
- Per-dimension summary — armoured vs exposed.
- The questions you fumbled / got wrong, each as: the question · why your answer was weak/wrong · the model answer (defend: a strong defense; study: the correct explanation) · the trap · how costly it is (viva-fail / desk-reject / lost-exam-marks).
- Prep actions — concrete and specific. Defend: what to add to the paper/talk, the one line to rehearse, the robustness check that kills the question. Study: exactly which sections/concepts to re-review, and the misconceptions to unlearn.
- Offer to persist it: write the study sheet to
reviews/<scope>/grill-me/<YYYY-MM-DD>.md (defend, scope = paper slug or _project) or notes/grill-me/<subject>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md (study). Read-only w.r.t. the material — grill-me never edits your paper or notes.
Key Rules
- One question per turn — the drill is the product. Batch-dumping is a study sheet, not a grilling.
- Ground every question in the material. No generic "what's your contribution?" / "define entropy" — tie it to their paper or their course notes.
- Reuse real material first — a logged referee open-issue (defend) or a known exam trap (study) outranks an invented question.
- No model answers mid-drill (partial hints only in coach mode). Answers land in Phase 3.
- Escalate then release — 1–2 follow-ups, then log and move on; don't grind one point forever.
- Honest verdicts, calibrated tone. Don't flatter a thin answer; the persona sets how hard you say it. In study mode, wrong is wrong — correct it kindly but clearly.
- Read-only on the material. The only write is the optional study-sheet file.
Anti-Patterns
- Don't print all 10 questions at once and wait — ask one, stop.
- Don't reveal the answer while the defender is still trying (recall under pressure is the point).
- Don't ask ungrounded quiz-show questions they can't map to their paper/class.
- Don't accept a dodge — name it and re-ask.
- Don't grill without a debrief — the study sheet is where the value is banked.
- Don't invent a referee objection when
reviews/INDEX.md already records a real one, or a fake exam trap when the notes state the real one.
Cross-References
| Skill / Agent | Relationship |
|---|
devils-advocate | Stress-tests arguments in prose; grill-me makes you defend them live |
referee2-reviewer / paper-critic | Written adversarial critique; grill-me seeds its hardest defend-mode questions from their reports |
weakness-scanner | Finds weak points; grill-me turns them into live questions |
review-cluster / pre-submission-report | Run first — their logged open-issues are grill-me's sharpest defend material |
course-reading-list / init-project-course | Course scaffolding; grill-me is the study-mode drill over that material |
docs/reference/venue-profiles/<field>.md | Venue referee-bait to seed positioning/venue questions (defend mode) |
