grill-with-docs

# CONTEXT.md Format

## Structure

```md
# {Context Name}

{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}

## Language

**Order**:
{A concise description of the term}
_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction

**Invoice**:
A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
_Avoid_: Bill, payment request

**Customer**:
A person or organization that places orders.
_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account

## Relationships

- An **Order** produces one or more **Invoices**
- An **Invoice** belongs to exactly one **Customer**

## Example dialogue

> **Dev:** "When a **Customer** places an **Order**, do we create the **Invoice** immediately?"
> **Domain expert:** "No - an **Invoice** is only generated once a **Fulfillment** is confirmed."

## Flagged ambiguities

- "account" was used to mean both **Customer** and **User** - resolved: these are distinct concepts.
```

## Rules

- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others as aliases to avoid.
- **Flag conflicts explicitly.** If a term is used ambiguously, call it out in "Flagged ambiguities" with a clear resolution.
- **Keep definitions tight.** One sentence max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
- **Show relationships.** Use bold term names and express cardinality where obvious.
- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.
- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.
- **Write an example dialogue.** A conversation between a dev and a domain expert that demonstrates how the terms interact naturally and clarifies boundaries between related concepts.

## Single vs multi-context repos

**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.

**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:

```md
# Context Map

## Contexts

- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) - receives and tracks customer orders
- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) - generates invoices and processes payments
- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) - manages warehouse picking and shipping

## Relationships

- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking
- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices
- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`
```

The skill infers which structure applies:

- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts
- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context
- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved

When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.

---
name: grill-with-docs
description: "Runs a grilling session that challenges a plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates the CONTEXT.md glossary inline as decisions are made. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions."
---

> Source: [mattpocock/skills - engineering/grill-with-docs](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/engineering/grill-with-docs)

<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 *fact* can be found by exploring the codebase, look it up instead of asking. The *decisions*, though, are mine - put each one to me and wait.

Do not enact the plan until I confirm we have reached a shared understanding.

</what-to-do>

<supporting-info>

## Domain awareness

During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:

### File structure

Most repos have a single context:

```text
/
├── CONTEXT.md
└── src/
```

If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:

```text
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   └── CONTEXT.md
│   └── billing/
│       └── CONTEXT.md
```

Create files lazily - only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved.

## 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 one precise term to use everywhere. "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-FORMAT.md).

Don't couple `CONTEXT.md` to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts. `CONTEXT.md` is a glossary and nothing else - not a spec, not a scratch pad.

### No ADRs from the grill

ADR creation is explicit-ask only, via `/document adr "<title>"`. The grill records decisions in the exit plan, saved on agreement to `.claude/state/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md`, never in an ADR `(review-time: a proposal is free-form text no hook can see)`

## Panel grilling (optional)

For a plan with genuine cross-domain tension or competing approaches, convene a **panel** (see `rules/parallel-agents.md`) instead of grilling solo:

- Spawn domain-expert teammates via the Agent tool (route per `rules/agent-routing.md`), each with a read-only brief and a distinct stance to argue `(review-time: panel-vs-solo judgment)`
- Have them debate the plan among themselves via SendMessage - the cross-talk between teammates surfaces contradictions and trade-offs you would miss solo `(review-time: protocol guidance)`
- Turn their disagreement into the next question and put it to the user - keep the user-facing cadence to one question at a time per `rules/communication.md`; the panel never messages the user directly `(review-time: cadence discipline)`
- Skip the panel for single-domain plans - solo grilling is cheaper and a panel adds nothing when there is nothing to contend `(review-time: panel-vs-solo judgment)`

</supporting-info>