Grill With Docs

---
name: grill-with-docs
description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (the .claude/rules/glossary.md glossary and .claude/rules/decisions.md log) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
---

<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 question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.

</what-to-do>

<supporting-info>

## Domain awareness

During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:

### File structure

This marketplace's convention is a `CLAUDE.md` hub that links spoke docs under `.claude/rules/`:

```
/
├── CLAUDE.md                  ← hub; links the spokes below
├── .claude/
│   └── rules/
│       ├── glossary.md        ← domain glossary (this skill maintains it)
│       └── decisions.md       ← decision log (append-only, dated entries)
└── src/
```

For a large or multi-area codebase, the `CLAUDE.md` hub links **multiple** spoke docs (that hub *is* the map); a big domain may split its glossary into several spokes (e.g. `.claude/rules/glossary-ordering.md`) all linked from the hub. Infer which spoke the current topic relates to; if unclear, ask.

Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `.claude/rules/glossary.md` exists, create it when the first term is resolved. Append to `.claude/rules/decisions.md` (creating it if absent) when the first decision is worth logging.

## During the session

### Challenge against the glossary

When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `.claude/rules/glossary.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 the glossary inline

When a term is resolved, update `.claude/rules/glossary.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md](./GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md).

Don't couple the glossary to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts.

### Offer decision-log entries sparingly

Only offer to append an entry to `.claude/rules/decisions.md` 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 it. Use the format in [DECISION-FORMAT.md](./DECISION-FORMAT.md).

</supporting-info>