Grill

grill — twin-agent adversarial interview

Requires: the sibling protocols skill (shared protocol masters); uses skills.config.json when present. Missing protocols → tell the user to install the full supermodo package.

Project rules. Read .supermodo/rules/grill.md if present, plus any .supermodo/rules/INDEX.md rows naming grill — that file IS this project's grill process and replaces the defaults below wherever they overlap. Contract: ../protocols/references/rules.md. Never in that file, so never switchable off: two models agreeing never substitutes for the user on a class-(c) question, a second opinion is never faked, disputes surface with both arguments verbatim.

Moderator skill implementing the grilling protocol. Two planners (host model + the OTHER provider) work the same brief independently, attack each other, and surface only what genuinely needs the user. Output is the locked triad (spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md) handed to librarian — grill never writes docs itself.

Read ../protocols/references/grilling.md (the master), plus ../protocols/references/cross-model.md, ../protocols/references/adversarial-review.md, ../protocols/references/questions.md. Follow the master exactly; this file adds host mechanics.

Entry points: standalone /supermodo:grill, librarian --task intake, flow stage 1 and mid-run needs-input escalations.

Actors (host-neutral)

• Moderator = you, main context. Hold the two threads, route questions per the questions triage, talk to the user, record decisions via librarian. NEVER crawl the codebase yourself — stay tiny.
• Local planner — a persistent agent of the HOST model.
• Adversary planner — a persistent READ-ONLY CLI session of the OTHER provider.

Either planner unavailable → honest single-model degradation (see bottom).

Phases (from the master)

1. Independent plans. Both planners get the same brief (user ask + docs router pointer). Each crawls code/docs, forms a plan + question list, WITHOUT seeing the other's output. No anchoring.
2. Disprove rounds. Each attacks the other's plan and proposed answers per the adversarial-review stance: every objection names a concrete failure scenario; "no material objection found" is a valid, logged outcome — never manufacture disagreement. Iterate to stable (1–2 rounds typical).
3. Question routing — three classes:
   • (a) discoverable facts — planners answer from code/docs; never reach the user.
   • (b) technical tradeoffs — adversary consulted first; asked individually ONLY on unresolved model conflict; agreed → settled table.
   • (c) product / scope / business logic / preference — ALWAYS an individual question with explicit user confirmation, even when both models agree (agreement ≠ consent); model agreement there only makes their position the recommended option.
4. Custom answers. A user answer that isn't one of the suggestions re-enters ONE disprove round (adversary attacks it with concrete scenarios); surviving objections shown; user confirms or amends before locking.
5. Record. Everything logged with both positions — including agent-to-agent resolutions. Durable decisions → ADRs; scope/plan → the triad. Via librarian.

Settled table first (mandatory, before the individual questions)

Every TECHNICAL (class-b) point the two models settled between themselves goes into ONE numbered table — never a per-item question parade:

Settled between the models (technical; reopen any by number):

| # | Question                          | Agreed answer                    |
|---|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| 1 | <the question, 1–2 lines>         | <agreed answer, one line>        |
| 2 | …                                 | …                                |

N technical points settled. Reopen any by number — otherwise they lock as shown.

Reopening a row re-presents it in the full question format below. Confirmation (or moving on) locks the rest. Then ask the individual questions: unresolved technical conflicts AND every business-logic / product / scope / preference call — those are never batched. 30 questions with 2 in those buckets = 2 questions asked, 28 rows reviewed.

Question format to the user (individual questions only, mandatory)

question transport follows the shared questions protocol: chat by default, config may override globally or per skill (uniform for every skill). Per concept-group:

<3–4 line plain-language explanation of the actual choice and what's at stake>

Q: <the question>
  1. Claude suggests: <host recommendation>
  2. Codex counters: <adversary view>   (swap names when Codex is host;
                                          "unavailable (single-model)")
  3. More detail — verbose, link-rich expansion (files, docs, decisions),
     then this question is asked again
  4. Your own answer
  5. Defer — leave open   (only where deferral is acceptable)

The user answers by number or free text. Choosing (3) never consumes the question; a (4) custom answer re-enters one disprove round before locking. Deferred items go to the work-doc Open Questions.

Host mechanics — Claude Code host

Local planner = a subagent kept alive across the whole grill (monitored per the liveness rule in ../protocols/references/handoff.md — a planner that stops producing between rounds is stopped and respawned once with the transcript so far; waiting on the USER is never a stall):

• Spawn one general subagent with the brief; it returns its plan + question list. Keep it alive and continue it via SendMessage to run disprove rounds and fold in user answers — its context stays intact, no rerun.

Adversary = codex exec, read-only, one persistent thread:

• Preflight first (per cross-model): codex --version, auth OK. On failure STOP and ask: fix+retry / continue single-model / abort. Never silently degrade.
• First call: codex exec --json -s read-only --skip-git-repo-check "<brief>" < /dev/null (drop --skip-git-repo-check inside a git repo). ALWAYS redirect < /dev/null or it hangs. Never pin -m. --json is REQUIRED on the first call — the {"type":"thread.started",...} event that carries thread_id only exists in JSON output; capture it there (the planner's prose lands in the item.completed/message events).
• Resume for every later round (SAME thread keeps context): codex exec resume <thread_id> -c sandbox_mode="read-only" "<next batch>" < /dev/null (resume rejects -s). Batch ~12 items per call. Give each call a 10-min timeout; within it, a call whose output stopped growing at ~0 CPU for ~5 consecutive min is hung, not slow — kill early, retry once fresh, second stall → single-model for that batch and record it.

Host mechanics — Codex host (inverted)

• Local planner = the host's OWN delegation mechanism, kept alive across rounds.
• Adversary = claude -p --allowedTools "Read,Grep,Glob" (read-only enforced by the explicit allowlist, never by trusting user settings), one persistent session, same preflight / batching / hung-detection rules. Never pin a model.
• Everything else identical; swap the Claude suggests: / Codex counters: labels so the HOST is the "suggests" line.

Output — what a successful grill produces

The locked triad content, in memory, handed to librarian to WRITE:

• spec.md — goal, non-goals, scope, acceptance evidence.
• plan.md — approach, steps, risks, alternatives considered.
• tasks.md — checklist with immutable inline task IDs (- [ ] X <!-- task:x -->).

Plus the recorded decision log (both positions per resolved question). grill hands this to librarian; grill creates no doc files. Mid-flow (needs-input during stages 2–6), it does NOT call librarian — it returns the decisions as structured decisions notes in the stage report for the stage-7 librarian pass, preserving the stages-1-and-7-only docs rule.

Hard rules

• Moderator never writes code, never edits docs, never crawls.
• No doc files exist until the grill resolves and the user signs off (librarian creates the triad at the end — standalone/intake only).
• Two models agreeing never substitutes for the user on class-(c) questions.
• Auto-resolution is class-scoped: recorded facts and durable technical decisions auto-resolve future runs; class-(c) answers may seed the default suggestion but the question STILL reaches the user.
• Disputes surface with both arguments verbatim — never silently resolved.
• Persist verdicts as they form (adversarial-review protocol).

Tie-break

At five unresolved rounds on one point, or when a disagreement hinges on product intent: present both positions verbatim and the user breaks the tie.

Degradation (honest, never faked)

Adversary CLI absent / unauthenticated / both retries stalled → say so, run single-model with explicitly labeled self-adversary lines (Codex counters: unavailable (single-model)), and mark the whole grill single-model in its output. Never pretend a second model reviewed.