grill-with-docs

name

grill-with-docs

description

Interview-style grilling that captures intent, sharpens vocabulary, and scaffolds wiki structure for a project scope. Use when the user wants to start a new workstream, refine an existing scope's intent, stress-test a plan against the project's domain language, or write a `spec-context.md` (glossary + relationships). Walks one question at a time, recommends an answer for each, and creates artifacts (`index.md`, `primer.md`, `spec-context.md`, lazy ADRs) inline as decisions crystallize. Auto-detects greenfield (scope folder missing → scaffold) vs brownfield (scope exists → refine + cross-reference code). Triggers on phrases like "grill me", "grill the plan", "let's nail down what we're building", "set up a new scope", "refine the intent", or `/grill-with-docs`.

Grill with Docs

Interview the user relentlessly about every aspect of a project's intent until you reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.

Ask one question at a time, waiting for feedback before continuing.

If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase or wiki, explore instead of asking.

Prerequisites

Before grilling, the project must declare WIKI_SCOPE: <scope> in its project instructions (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or equivalent). If missing, suggest /wiki first and stop.

Mode detection

Read projects/<scope>/index.md in the vault:

• Greenfield — file does not exist. Scaffold the scope from scratch (intent capture → identity → primer stub → methodology → vocabulary → lazy ADRs).
• Brownfield — file exists. Refine intent, cross-reference code (if any), surface contradictions between user's stated model and code/spec reality, sharpen spec-context.md and ADRs as the conversation reveals them.

Announce the mode you're running in before starting.

New-scope guardrail: if <scope> is not in vault.yaml's scopes: field, STOP. New scopes need explicit user approval. Surface the current scope list and ask.

Greenfield flow

Step 1 — Identity (lands in index.md)

Collect, one question at a time:

• Title — What does this project deliver, in one phrase? (Recommend: short, noun-phrase form, e.g. "Operations system for a food truck")
• Summary — What is it, in one or two sentences? (Recommend: extract from the user's first description; show your draft.)
• Methodology — sdd (spec-driven), tdd (test-driven), or hybrid? (Recommend hybrid for app-layer work, sdd for spec-heavy or contract-first work, tdd when the surface is mostly behavior-discoverable. State your reasoning per project.)
• Phase — what number? (Recommend 0 for greenfield, 1 if a working prototype exists.)
• Tags — pick 3-6 from existing top_tags if prime(<scope>) is callable; otherwise propose new ones with justification.

Write projects/<scope>/index.md in the vault using the wiki://template/project/index resource. Frontmatter only — body can be a single line summary. Do not invent fields outside the schema.

Step 2 — Primer stub (lands in primer.md)

Primer is co-authored. Don't invent prose. Create a stub:

---
created: "<today>"
updated: <today>
---

# <Title>

## Current Focus

<one to three sentences — agreed with user>

## Open Questions

- <question 1>
- <question 2>

## Blocked On

- <none, or specifics>

Use wiki://template/project/primer for the canonical shape. created is write-once — set it at creation and never bump it; only updated changes on later edits. Optional sections (Load-bearing invariants, Read Order, Working set) are added later as they earn their place.

Step 3 — Vocabulary (lands in spec/spec-context.md, lazy creation)

As the user describes the system, watch for:

• Domain terms — words that map to specific concepts in this project (Order, Lot, Customer, Cart, Migration)
• Synonym conflicts — same concept, multiple words ("cancellation" vs "void" vs "refund")
• Overloaded terms — same word, multiple meanings ("account" = Customer or User?)

When the first term gets resolved, create projects/<scope>/spec/spec-context.md in the vault using wiki://template/project/spec. Body shape:

# <Scope> — Domain Context

<One to two sentences: what this domain is and why it exists.>

## Language

**Term1**:
A concise definition (one sentence).
_Avoid_: aliases that shouldn't be used.

**Term2**:
A concise definition.
_Avoid_: aliases.

## Relationships

- A **Term1** has one or more **Term2**.
- A **Term2** belongs to exactly one **Term1**.

## Example dialogue

> **User:** "When a Customer places an Order, do we create the Invoice immediately?"
> **Domain expert:** "No — an Invoice is only generated once a Fulfillment is confirmed."

## Flagged ambiguities

- "account" was used to mean both **Customer** and **User** — resolved: distinct concepts.

Update spec-context.md inline as more terms resolve. Don't batch.

Vocabulary rules:

• Be opinionated. Pick one canonical term per concept; list aliases under _Avoid_.
• Keep definitions tight. One sentence max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
• Only include terms specific to this project. General programming concepts (timeouts, retries, error types) don't belong.
• Group terms under subheadings only when natural clusters emerge.

Step 4 — Lazy ADRs (adr/adr-{topic}.md)

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 wiki://template/project/adr. Body shape:

# <Title>

## Status

active

## Context

What forced this decision? What constraints applied?

## Decision

The decision in one sentence, then a short paragraph elaborating.

## Rationale

Why this option over the alternatives. Reference the alternatives by name.

## Consequences

What becomes easier. What becomes harder. What knock-on effects exist.

## Alternatives considered

- **Alternative A** — why rejected.
- **Alternative B** — why rejected.

Termination

The greenfield grill is done when:

1. index.md exists with methodology declared.
2. primer.md exists (stub at minimum, with Current Focus and at least one Open Question or "none").
3. spec-context.md exists IF any domain terms were resolved (skip if the conversation was about pure infrastructure with no project-specific vocabulary).
4. At least one ADR exists IF a hard-to-reverse decision surfaced. Skip if none did.

State the termination explicitly when reached:

"Scaffold complete. Run prime(<scope>) to verify orientation. Next steps: /to-prd if you want to draft a workstream from this conversation, or just start working in the project — the wiki will catch up via /grill-with-docs again later."

Brownfield flow

Step 1 — Orient

• Run prime(<scope>) via the wiki MCP to load identity, primer, active ADRs.
• Read spec-context.md if it exists.
• Read recent ADRs and the current plan.

Step 2 — Cross-reference code

Walk the codebase using the project's domain glossary. Look for contradictions:

• Code uses a term that conflicts with spec-context.md Language section → flag it.
• Code structure implies a relationship the user didn't mention → ask.
• Spec says X happens but code does Y → surface the contradiction.

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?"

Step 3 — Refine

Based on the conversation:

• New term → add to spec-context.md Language section inline.
• Term redefinition → update Language entry; add a "Flagged ambiguities" entry recording the change.
• Hard-to-reverse decision → offer an ADR per the three-test.
• Spec correction → land it inline in the relevant spec/spec-{topic}.md. Don't queue corrections in the plan — that creates doc-debt.
• Open question resolved → strip from primer; reflect resolution in the relevant ADR or spec.

Step 4 — Update primer (only when explicitly asked)

Per vault rules, primer is co-authored. Suggest changes; don't write them silently. If the user agrees, update Current Focus, Open Questions, Blocked On. Strip stale Read Order / Working set entries.

Termination

The brownfield grill is done when:

1. All flagged ambiguities are resolved or explicitly deferred.
2. New domain terms are captured in spec-context.md.
3. Hard-to-reverse decisions have ADRs.
4. Code/spec contradictions are either fixed in the spec or recorded as known divergences.

Rules

• Ask one question at a time. Wait for the user's answer. Provide a recommended answer with reasoning for each.
• If a question can be answered by reading code or wiki, do that instead of asking.
• Never invent scopes outside vault.yaml. Stop and ask if the user names a new scope.
• Don't write primer.md prose without user approval. Stub headers are fine; narrative is co-authored.
• Update spec-context.md inline, not in batches.
• Skip ADRs unless all three tests pass. Most decisions don't deserve one.
• Always update frontmatter updated: field on any edit.
• Keep questions concrete. "What's the methodology?" is fine; "How should we approach this?" is too vague.
• Quote prose-bearing frontmatter scalars in YAML — summary: "..." — to avoid breaking the sync walker.

Reference files

• questions-cookbook.md — common grilling questions per scaffolding stage with recommended answers