# Grill Plan > Grilling session that stress-tests a chosen plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use AFTER a direction has been picked (post-`investigate` or post-`feature-doc`), when the user wants to pressure-test the plan — triggered by phrases like "grill me on this", "stress-test this plan", "walk me through this", "is this consistent with our model". Skip if the direction is still being explored — use `investigate` instead. - Skill: `ai-agent-lead/grill-plan` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ai-agent-lead/grill-plan` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ai-agent-lead/grill-plan/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: ai-agent-lead (https://skillmd.com/u/ai-agent-lead) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ai-agent-lead/grill-plan --- ## When to use - A direction has been picked (post-`investigate` or post-`feature-doc`) and you want to pressure-test it against the existing model. - Mid-`improve-codebase-architecture` — the grilling loop borrows this skill's discipline. ## When to skip - The direction is still being explored — use [`investigate`](../investigate/SKILL.md) instead. - The plan is fully exploratory and no decisions are being committed — also `investigate`. - The decision is trivially reversible — there's nothing to stress-test. - Greenfield repo with no `CONTEXT.md` / ADRs yet → run [`bootstrap`](../bootstrap/SKILL.md) first. ## What to do Interview me relentlessly about 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 each question, provide your 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. ## 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 [`../formats/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md`](../formats/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md). Don't couple `CONTEXT.md` to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts. ### 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 [`../formats/ADR-FORMAT.md`](../formats/ADR-FORMAT.md). ## Pairing with other skills - **[`investigate`](../investigate/SKILL.md)** — runs *before* when direction is unclear. Once a direction is chosen, hand off here. - **[`DOC-DRIFT-AUDIT.md`](../formats/DOC-DRIFT-AUDIT.md)** — the terminology/ADR audit (formerly the `sync-check` skill) escalates here when it finds a terminology collision or ADR contradiction in existing code. - **[`feature-doc`](../feature-doc/SKILL.md)** — runs *before* when a feature doc is the input to grilling, or *after* when grilling refines the plan into a feature doc. - **[`system-design`](../system-design/SKILL.md)** — defers here for hard-to-reverse topology decisions. - **[`improve-codebase-architecture`](../improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md)** — borrows this skill's grilling discipline in its own grilling loop. - **[`tdd-rounds`](../tdd-rounds/SKILL.md)** — escalates here mid-round when an ADR is wobbling. ## Done when - No open questions remain on the chosen plan. - Every term used during the session has been resolved into `CONTEXT.md` (or explicitly flagged as ambiguous). - Any decision that meets all three ADR criteria has been offered (and either accepted or declined). - The user explicitly says "this is enough" or "let's move on" — don't keep grilling past their patience.