agentleFS
bushuhuibushuhui/skills/pd-grill-with-docs/SKILL.md

pd-grill-with-docs

Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

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

    line 12
  3. Very specific:

    If a CONTEXT-MAP.md exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts.

    line 36
  4. Very specific:

    Create files lazily — only when you have something to write.

    line 52
  5. Very specific:

    When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in CONTEXT.md, call it out immediately.

    line 58
  6. Distinctive:

    When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term.

    line 62
  7. Distinctive:

    When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios.

    line 66
  8. Distinctive:

    When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees.

    line 70
  9. Very specific:

    When a term is resolved, update CONTEXT.md right there.

    line 74
  10. Very specific:

    Don't couple CONTEXT.md to implementation details.

    line 76
  11. Distinctive:

    Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:

    line 80
  12. Distinctive:

    If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR.

    line 86

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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
<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

Most repos have a single context:

/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/
│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/

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

/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
│   └── billing/
│       ├── CONTEXT.md
│       └── docs/adr/

Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no CONTEXT.md exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no docs/adr/ exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.

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 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 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.

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

Offer ADRs sparingly

Only offer to create an ADR 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 the ADR. Use the format in ADR-FORMAT.md.

After the session

Once the grilling session is complete and docs/RAD.md has been updated with refined decisions, guide the user to the next step:

  • 方案已打磨完成,需要转化为可执行需求文档 → run /pd-to-prd (reads the refined docs/RAD.md, synthesizes into a structured PRD, and publishes to the issue tracker)
  • 关键设计决策仍需验证 → run /pd-prototype (builds a throwaway prototype to validate the riskiest assumptions — state machines, UI layouts, data models)
</supporting-info>

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.