Grill With Docs

Grill With Docs

Core Principle

Stress-test the plan against the project's own language and documented decisions: interview relentlessly, one question at a time, until shared understanding is reached. Read-only by default, writing CONTEXT.md, docs/adr/, or any other file is a mutation behind the Schema loop or explicit approval.

When to Use / NOT

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

NOT, when file writes are needed without the Schema loop or explicit approval (this skill is read-only by default); when a question can be answered by exploring the codebase (explore the codebase instead).

Workflow

Interview one question at a time, walking down each branch of the design tree and resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one, with a recommended answer for each. Challenge terms against the CONTEXT.md glossary, sharpen fuzzy language, discuss concrete scenarios, and cross-reference claims with the code. Update CONTEXT.md inline as each term resolves; offer ADRs sparingly, only when hard to reverse, surprising without context, and the result of a real trade-off.

Read-only default and mutation boundary

This skill is a research/interview workflow. Writing CONTEXT.md, docs/adr/, or any other file is a mutation: in this repository it requires the Schema loop (schema.hypothesize → verify → commit) or explicit user approval of the exact files before writing. ADR format follows the documentation-and-adrs skill (structured ADR); the minimal form in ADR-FORMAT.md is only for small, low-stakes entries.

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 CONTEXT-FORMAT.md.

CONTEXT.md should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat CONTEXT.md as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.

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.

Red Flags

A glossary conflict in CONTEXT.md not called out immediately. vague or overloaded terms left unsharpened. a contradiction between stated behavior and the code not surfaced; CONTEXT.md accumulating implementation details (it is a glossary and nothing else). CONTEXT.md updates batched instead of captured inline. an ADR offered without all three conditions true.

Verification

Shared understanding reached, each branch of the design tree resolved one-by-one; CONTEXT.md updated inline with every resolved term; any ADR created satisfies all three conditions (hard to reverse, surprising without context, real trade-off).

References

Format references at the skill root:

• CONTEXT-FORMAT.md, the CONTEXT.md glossary format used for inline updates
• ADR-FORMAT.md, the minimal ADR form for small, low-stakes entries