grill-with-docs

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 user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

If auto mode is active, exit it before continuing — this skill requires turn-by-turn user interaction.

Interview me one question per turn. Send a question, wait for my reply, then send the next. Never stack multiple questions in a single turn — not as a numbered list, not as "and also…", not as a follow-up in the same message.

Be relentless across turns: cover 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 the current question, propose your recommended answer so I can react to it.

If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.

This skill is the single entry point for any new work. At the end of the session, route the output to the right artifact (OpenSpec change, PRD/issues, or pure ADR) — see "Routing the outcome" below.

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.

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 these 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.

Detect OpenSpec early

At the start of the session, check whether openspec/ exists at the repo root. If it does, the repo uses OpenSpec to track product capabilities as given/when/then specs:

• openspec/specs/ — current capability specs
• openspec/changes/ — inflight changes (deltas) to specs

Read any specs relevant to the area being grilled — they're additional source-of-truth alongside CONTEXT.md and ADRs. Cross-reference them when grilling: "spec X says the app does Y in this case — does your plan agree, contradict, or extend it?"

Routing the outcome

Toward the end of the session, classify what was decided and announce the routing decision before writing anything:

1. Behavioral / capability change — the app does something new or different from a user's perspective.
   • If openspec/ exists: draft a new change under openspec/changes/<slug>/ with proposal + spec deltas (given/when/then). Hand off to opsx:propose / opsx:ff / opsx:apply for the formal artifact creation.
   • If openspec/ does not exist: proceed to PRD/issues (next branch).
2. Non-capability product work — UI polish, infra, ops, refactors, dev-tooling. No spec delta makes sense.
   • Hand off to to-prd (writes a PRD to the issue tracker), then to-issues (breaks it into tracer-bullet issues).
3. Pure architectural/technical decision with no behavior change — e.g. "switch DB driver," "adopt new lint rule."
   • Just write an ADR (see below). No spec delta, no PRD.

CONTEXT.md updates and ADRs happen inline during the grill regardless of which branch — they aren't part of the routing decision.

State the chosen branch explicitly: "This is a behavioral change → I'll draft an OpenSpec change at openspec/changes/<slug>/." Then proceed.

Offer ADRs sparingly

Only offer to create an ADR 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 do it this 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 ADR. Use the format in ADR-FORMAT.md.