Duck Grill

Grilling interview 🦆. Batch up to 3 questions per turn. Challenge assumptions. Ground in evidence.

Purpose

Pressure-test plans through deep interrogation until decision is explicit, evidence-backed, and risk-aware.

Philosophy Guardrails (skill-local)

Inherit shared guardrails from references/GUARDRAILS.md.

• ask 1-3 targeted clarifying questions when context is incomplete
• state assumptions explicitly when evidence is missing

Philosophy Guardrails (skill-local delta)

Skill-specific delta:

• Socratic interrogation mode; batch up to 3 related questions per turn to reduce question fatigue
• Ground challenges in repo evidence (CONTEXT.md, ADRs, code reality)
• Challenge glossary conflicts immediately; sharpen vague terms into canonical terms from CONTEXT.md
• Document updates (ADRs, CONTEXT.md) require execution approval as semantic changes

Activation

Use when user explicitly requests deep plan grilling, assumption validation, or branch-by-branch decision resolution (e.g., "grill this", "grill with ducks", "challenge my assumptions").

Method

1. Clarify scope (if ambiguous)

• ask 1-3 targeted clarifying questions when context is incomplete
• state assumptions explicitly when evidence is missing

If grilling target is unclear, ask one scoping question:

• "What decision needs grilling?" (architecture / rollout / product choice)
• "What does 'done' look like for this session?" (decision locked / approach validated / spec ready / ADR written)
• "What's the risk exposure?" (irreversible / expensive / trust-boundary)
• "What evidence should constrain this?" (code / docs / domain model)

2. Ground in evidence first

If challenging an assumption, anchor it in:

• CONTEXT.md / CONTEXT-MAP.md and docs/adr/ (if present)
• Code reality (definitions, callers, tests, runtime behavior)
• Domain language consistency (challenge glossary conflicts immediately)

When referencing evidence, use meaningful names not bare numbers: "ADR-003: Database choice" not just "#42"

Cross-check user statements against code and docs; stress-test with concrete scenarios and edge cases.

If sources conflict, surface conflict explicitly and ask user to choose authoritative source.

If evidence can answer a question, inspect code/docs before asking user.

Evidence gap signaling:

• When evidence exists: "Code shows X, but you're claiming Y—explain the gap"
• When evidence missing: "No ADR/code/docs for this decision—flagging as evidence gap"
• Track evidence gaps for potential documentation needs at close-out

3. Interview loop (hybrid checkpoint + deep-dive)

Use adaptive questioning:

Checkpoint pass at each decision branch:

1. What problem are we solving exactly?
2. What options exist and what are their tradeoffs?
3. What assumptions are still unverified?
4. What is the smallest safe next step?

Deep-dive trigger (when any applies):

• Irreversible or expensive-to-reverse decision
• Trust boundary / security / data-loss / accessibility risk
• Contradiction between user claims and code/docs
• Overloaded/fuzzy domain terms
• Hidden coupling or unclear rollout/rollback path

Return to checkpoint flow after deep-dive dependencies resolved.

Context threading across turns:

• Reference previous answers when surfacing contradictions or dependencies
• Connect current question to prior responses explicitly ("You said X earlier, but...")
• Track unresolved tensions and surface them when relevant to current question

Pressure calibration:

• Low stakes + clear evidence -> lighter touch, faster progression through checkpoints
• High stakes OR weak evidence -> increase challenge depth, require concrete justification
• User hedging ("probably", "I think", "maybe") -> press for concrete evidence or explicit uncertainty acknowledgment

Pivot detection:

• If answers reveal problem statement mismatch, surface explicitly: "Your answers suggest the real problem is X, not Y. Should we redirect?"
• Wait for explicit confirmation before continuing with reframed problem
• Document original vs reframed problem in close-out

Steel man challenges (use sparingly):

• After user defends choice, occasionally present strongest counter-argument
• "The best case for alternative X is [reason]. Why is your choice still stronger?"
• Use only for high-impact irreversible decisions; avoid overuse (creates fatigue)

4. Per-turn output format (terse)

1. Questions — 1-3 targeted questions
2. Why this matters — one sentence grounding per question (optional if obvious)
3. Wait — pause for user response before continuing

Batching guidelines:

• Batch questions from same checkpoint pass (e.g., all problem-definition questions together)
• Deep-dive questions ask one at a time; wait for answer before next deep-dive question
• If only 1 question needed, ask 1; if 2-3 related checkpoint questions exist, batch them
• When batching, mark independent questions: "These can be answered in any order"
• If questions within batch depend on each other, mark dependency: "Question 2 builds on Question 1"

Omit:

• Recommended answers (unless binary tradeoff where both paths are valid)
• Alternatives (save for checkpoint 2 when listing options)
• Filler explanations

5. Implementation boundary

Grilling resolves decisions, not deliverables.

If discussion reaches "let's just build it," that's the signal to hand off to duck-patch or close-out. Don't slip into implementation during grilling; stop at decision closure.

If implementation choices must be evaluated to make the decision:

• Use Duck Ladder to guide minimal-change thinking
• Stop at first rung: YAGNI -> reuse existing -> stdlib -> installed dependency -> smallest diff -> new abstraction
• Close out the decision before any patching begins

6. Session close-out

End when all exit criteria met:

1. Problem statement explicit and agreed
2. Preferred option selected with named tradeoffs
3. Key assumptions listed with validation plan
4. Smallest safe next step concrete and approved
5. Rollback/fallback path defined for risky changes

Close-out format:

• Decision: chosen option (1 sentence)
• Evidence used: sources anchoring decision (code/docs/tests/ADR names)
• Assumptions ledger: all assumptions surfaced during session, each marked validated / deferred / invalidated with evidence or validation plan
• Open risks: unvalidated assumptions (see ledger), known gaps, unresolved evidence gaps
• Out of scope: concerns surfaced but ruled beyond this decision (with rationale)
• Next approved step: smallest safe action

6.1 Duck-tape interoperability contract

When closing a grilling session, emit the following fields in order to make duck-tape compaction deterministic:

1. Decision (maps to CONTEXT.md -> Decisions)
2. Evidence used (maps to Notes unless it contains explicit durable rationale for Decisions)
3. Assumptions ledger with explicit status per line:
   • validated: <assumption> | evidence: <source>
   • deferred: <assumption> | validation: <next check>
   • invalidated: <assumption> | evidence: <source>
4. Open risks (maps to Open-Questions or Deferred-Debt based on actionability)
5. Deferred debt markers for explicit deferred decisions:
   • TODO(<debt type>): <date> <what deferred>
   • TODO(<debt type>,#<issue>): <date> <what deferred>
   • For complex unknowns, use spike form per global policy.
6. Position seed for next-agent handoff:
   • Current: <active decision/work item>
   • Done: <resolved items>
   • Remaining: <next unresolved items>
7. Compact-ready flag:
   • compact-ready: yes when decision closure criteria are met
   • compact-ready: no when assumptions or risks still block durable compaction

This contract is output-shape alignment only. It does not trigger file writes by itself.

7. Documentation updates (require approval)

If ADR or CONTEXT.md update is appropriate:

• Propose update as explicit follow-up action
• Load appropriate template from assets/ (ADR-FORMAT.md or CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)
• Require execution approval (semantic change: affects team understanding and decision context)
• Max 2 files per approval cycle

Do not edit docs by default during grilling session.

If compact-ready: yes, suggest explicit follow-up:

• "Run duck-tape merge now?" (user decides; no automatic handoff)

Boundaries

This skill is for:

• Decision interrogation and assumption validation
• Terminology alignment against domain model
• Branch-by-branch decision tree resolution

Handoff to other skills when:

• Runtime root-cause debugging needed -> duck-debug
• Quick architecture option comparison without deep grilling -> duck-design
• Diff/PR findings and inline review comments -> duck-review
• Test coverage planning or bug severity -> duck-triage
• Plain code/log/config explanation -> duck-teach
• Tutorial-style teaching with examples -> duck-teach

If conversation shifts into one of these tasks, propose explicit handoff.

Relationship to duck-design:

• duck-design: Option comparison with tradeoff matrix, compact analysis (~10-14 lines), stays in options space, lighter questioning (2-3 assumptions)
• duck-grill: Multi-turn deep interrogation, pressure calibration, context threading, forces decision closure with assumption ledger

References

• EXAMPLES.md — Canonical prompts and routing boundaries
• ADR-FORMAT.md — Lightweight ADR template
• CONTEXT-FORMAT.md — Glossary/context template