agentleFS
Beskars-CodeBeskars-Code/Skills/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md

grill-me

Skill0 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when the user asks to be grilled, to challenge or stress-test an idea, or to settle decisions before a plan. Build and ticket skills also run it for unresolved choices. Interviews, then locks the decisions in chat; writes no code.

194 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use brief-to-tasks, writing-beats and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • julianoczkowskiSkill

    brief-to-tasks

    Break a design brief into an ordered checklist of independently buildable tasks using vertical slices. Saves as a markdown checklist. Use when user wants to break down work, create tasks from a brief, plan implementation order, or mentions "tasks" or "breakdown".

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • LesaniSkill

    writing-beats

    Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.

    Also in 66 projects that use this

  • simo97Skill

    request-refactor-plan

    Use this skill when user wants to create a refactor plan.

    Also in 43 projects that use this

  • simo97Skill

    migrate-to-shoehorn

    Migrate test files from `as` type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace `as` in tests, or needs partial test data.

    Also in 71 projects that use this

  • LesaniSkill

    writing-shape

    Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.

    Also in 65 projects that use this

  • liufeng1976Skill

    setup-ts-deep-modules

    Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.

    Also in 42 projects that use this

  • +2 more from simo97

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every run: open doctrine.md, the execution context, and the Asking the user and Plain language sections of

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    When the parent is /write-ticket, focus on its ticket-preparation topics.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    If everything is settled, omit Questions.

    line 42
  4. Distinctive:

    Put answers, their reasons, rules that must stay true, corrections, and researched ownership paths directly in the execution context.

    line 43
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep language, choices, rules, and progress in the chat.

    line 60
  6. Distinctive:

    Follow nested capabilities.

    line 66
  7. Very specific:

    Stop after shared understanding unless the user explicitly asks for the next step.

    line 73

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Grill Me

Stress-test the request until its consequential decisions fit together across the affected flow. Research facts, question weak answers, and carry concrete contracts and honest remaining gaps into the execution context.

Read when

  • Settling a touched user flow or visible action? Open user-experience.md before proposing choices. Infer routine details from the outcome and existing product; ask only material tradeoffs. Backend-only work skips this.
  • About to recommend an answer? Open code-quality.md and code-structure.md. Skip them and you recommend the option the rules forbid.
  • Every run: open doctrine.md, the execution context, and the Asking the user and Plain language sections of writing-style.md. Skip them and you mix Questions with Locked in, or ask what the repo already answers.

Process

  1. Establish or refresh a compact in-chat execution context from the ask and rediscovered repository, ticket, PR, or diff facts. If a parent already supplied an outcome, current slice, non-goals, area, and ticket/PR, reuse that brief. Re-announce only facts or user decisions that changed or were missing. Before testing solution choices, show the doctrine's intent restatement in your own words, one short plain-English bullet per idea. Reuse a parent's current restatement when it already meets that bar.
  2. Separate researched facts, settled decisions, ordinary implementer choices, and unresolved consequential tradeoffs using the doctrine's materiality bar. Research factual gaps and reuse the parent's decisions. Derive ordinary implementation details from the evidence and applicable quality and structure rules; do not turn them into an interview.
  3. When the parent is /write-ticket, focus on its ticket-preparation topics. Surface consequential choices affecting behavior, data, contracts, delivery boundaries, dependencies, and authority. The parent derives child count, order, and file lanes from the settled choices.
  4. Map choices and their prerequisites using the doctrine's decision rounds. If consequential user-owned choices remain, send a Questions-only batch (no Locked heading). Each question names one concrete choice, the relevant evidence or uncertainty, realistic alternatives, a recommendation with its reason, and practical consequences. Follow decision dependencies and ask the independent choices that can be answered now. Wait for the reply. If everything is settled, omit Questions.
  5. Put answers, their reasons, rules that must stay true, corrections, and researched ownership paths directly in the execution context. Ask another batch for an incomplete answer, contradiction, or newly exposed consequential tradeoff. Apply answer pressure; a topic mentioned or recommendation offered is not a settled decision. Missing template categories do not justify another interview.
  6. Apply the readiness check to the affected flow. Honor pause, defer, and stop without claiming unresolved work is ready. When material Questions are settled, announce Locked in (tell me if this is wrong) in a separate announce-only message. Include meaningful non-goals, derived split, and shared understanding. Put the corrected line-by-line intent restatement there, keeping current decisions and their reasons and dropping superseded ones. Reuse a current parent lock that already covers these decisions.
  7. Issue plans only after the Locked in message stands and every relevant rule has an enforcement and verification owner.

Keep language, choices, rules, and progress in the chat. If the user wants a durable artifact, ask for or honor an approved destination under the shared optional-persistence rule.

If a parent already owns the next step

Follow nested capabilities. Return only changed decisions, their reasons, and remaining material gaps to the parent. It owns the next step; /write-ticket finishes the ticket, and the selected execution skill continues its current lifecycle.

If this is a user one-off

Stop after shared understanding unless the user explicitly asks for the next step. For an authorized build use the Skills table in AGENTS.md:

  • Structure needed: /analyze, then the selected execution skill.
  • Ready to build: /task. Carry settled decisions and test refusals.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.