Domain Modeling

Domain Modeling

Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the active discipline: challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. Merely reading CONTEXT.md for vocabulary is not this skill, that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.

Runs alongside grilling sessions (grill-with-docs is the front door that pairs the two), wayfinder grilling tickets, and to-spec synthesis: anywhere terms get decided. It's supporting work, not a pipeline stage: it never prints the pipeline end-of-session block, whether nested or run directly, the invoking skill (or the user's next step) owns routing.

File structure

Most repos have a single context:

/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/
│       ├── 0001-single-db-multi-tenancy.md
│       └── 0002-money-as-integer-minor-units.md
└── app/

If a CONTEXT-MAP.md exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives: in a Laravel modular monolith that's the module root:

/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/                              ← system-wide decisions
└── app/Domain/                           ← or modules/, app-modules/, follow the repo
    ├── Ordering/
    │   ├── CONTEXT.md
    │   └── docs/adr/                     ← context-specific decisions
    └── Billing/
        ├── CONTEXT.md
        └── docs/adr/

Create files lazily: only when you have something to write. No CONTEXT.md? Create one when the first term is resolved. No docs/adr/? Create it when the first ADR is needed. Formats: references/context-format.md and references/adr-format.md.

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. Where AskUserQuestion is available, put the candidates as options: your recommendation first, each option's description saying what choosing it commits the model to; otherwise ask the same shape in chat. "You're saying 'account', is that the Customer or the User?" is a click-to-answer decision, not an open-ended essay prompt.

Discuss concrete scenarios

When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force precision about the boundaries between concepts: "A Customer with two Subscriptions cancels one mid-cycle, what happens to the Invoice already issued?"

Cross-reference with code

When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. In a Laravel codebase the model lives in more places than prose, check the glossary term against:

• Eloquent model and relationship names (app/Models, HasMany method names)
• Table and column names in migrations
• Enum cases (app/Enums)
• Policy names and ability strings
• Filament resource/page labels and navigation names
• Route names, job names, event names

If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders (Order::cancel()), but you just said partial cancellation is possible, which is right?" When a term is resolved against the code's current naming, the rename is real build work, record the decision here, and leave the rename itself for the spec (or a tickets/ ticket once one exists), never as a wayfinder decision-map ticket, which holds only things decided, not things built. Never silently absorb it.

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 references/context-format.md. If sessions may run in parallel, re-read CONTEXT.md immediately before writing and add only your entry, so a concurrent edit isn't clobbered.

CONTEXT.md must stay totally devoid of implementation details. It is a glossary, not a spec, a scratch pad, or a home for implementation decisions.

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 references/adr-format.md.