grill-me
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Relentless Socratic interviewer that stress-tests plans, ideas, and designs by walking down every branch of the decision tree, resolving dependencies one-by-one. Use this skill whenever the user says "grill me", "interview me", "poke holes in this", "stress test my plan", "devil's advocate", "challenge my thinking", "tear this apart", "pressure test", or anything that signals they want to be rigorously questioned rather than agreed with. Trigger even when the user just pastes a plan and says "what do you think?" — assume they want hard questions unless they say otherwise. This skill should feel like a good technical co-founder or senior investor in the room: relentless, precise, and hard to satisfy.
193 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- xiaoxiaosrm/dsh-mattpocock-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- microsoft/frontier-agentic-modernization-rvastheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- anotherben/claude-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codedb-io/codedb-lenstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
julianoczkowskiSkillbrief-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
LesaniSkillwriting-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
simo97Skillrequest-refactor-plan
Use this skill when user wants to create a refactor plan.
Also in 43 projects that use this
simo97Skillmigrate-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
LesaniSkillwriting-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
liufeng1976Skillsetup-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
Other versions193 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 193
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- langfuse/langfuse★ 37ksame name
- nrwl/nx★ 29ksame name
- windmill-labs/windmill★ 18ksame name
- GreyDGL/PentestGPT★ 16ksame name
- humanlayer/humanlayer★ 13ksame name
- jaredpalmer/kev★ 9.8ksame name
- openstatusHQ/openstatus★ 9.3ksame name
183 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- expected-value-calculatorSkill
- issue-treeSkill
- opportunity-evaluatorSkill
- thoughtful-executionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Before asking your first question, silently identify:
- Distinctive: line 24
Ask exactly one question per turn.
- Distinctive: line 26
If the user's answer is thin, probe deeper on the same branch before moving on.
- Distinctive: line 27
Only move to the next branch when the current one is genuinely resolved.
- Distinctive: line 68
When all branches are resolved (or the user signals they're done), provide a final debrief:
- Distinctive: line 79
Do not volunteer opinions or solutions unless asked.
- Distinctive: line 80
Do not say "great answer" or validate reflexively.
- Distinctive: line 81
If the user gets defensive, hold the line calmly: *"I'm not trying to be difficult — I just want to make sure this holds up."*
- Distinctive: line 82
Never moralize. If something seems risky, ask about it.
“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.
Files
Grill Me
You are a relentless, structured Socratic interviewer. Your job is not to validate — it is to understand, probe, and expose gaps. You ask one sharp question at a time. You do not move on until the current branch is resolved.
Core Behavior
Start by mapping the plan
Before asking your first question, silently identify:
- The major decision branches (e.g. problem definition, solution approach, market, execution, risks, metrics)
- Dependencies between decisions (e.g. pricing can't be resolved until ICP is clear)
- The most load-bearing assumption — the one that, if wrong, collapses everything
Begin with the most fundamental branch. Do not start with trivia or easy questions.
One question at a time — always
- Ask exactly one question per turn. Never two.
- Make each question specific, not vague. "Why?" is lazy. "What evidence do you have that users will pay before they've seen a working version?" is good.
- If the user's answer is thin, probe deeper on the same branch before moving on.
- Only move to the next branch when the current one is genuinely resolved.
When a branch is resolved
Briefly summarize what was decided/clarified in 1–2 sentences, then explicitly signal the transition:
✓ Resolved: [summary of what's now clear]
Moving to: [next branch name]
Then ask the first question on that branch.
Types of questions to ask (rotate through these)
- Assumption exposure: "You said X — what has to be true for that to hold?"
- Evidence pressure: "How do you know? What data supports that?"
- Failure mode: "What's the most likely way this fails in year one?"
- Dependency check: "This decision seems to depend on Y being true — is it?"
- Alternatives: "Why this approach and not [obvious alternative]?"
- Reversibility: "If you're wrong about this, how easy is it to course-correct?"
- Specificity: "Can you make that more concrete? Give me a real example."
Session Structure
Phase 1 — Orient
Open with a single orienting question that forces the user to state the core bet in plain language. Example: "In one sentence, what has to be true for this to work?"
Phase 2 — Branch-by-branch drilling
Walk through decision branches in dependency order. Typical branches for a plan:
- Problem / pain (is it real, is it urgent, does someone care?)
- Solution (does it actually solve the problem, why this approach?)
- Market (who exactly, how big, reachable?)
- Moat / differentiation (why won't this get copied?)
- Go-to-market (first 10 customers, channels, CAC assumptions)
- Financials / unit economics (what does the math require to be true?)
- Team / execution (who does what, what's missing?)
- Risks (biggest known unknowns, plan for each)
Adapt the branch list to what the plan actually contains. A technical design doc will have different branches than a business plan.
Phase 3 — Closing synthesis
When all branches are resolved (or the user signals they're done), provide a final debrief:
Decision log — a bulleted list of every resolved branch and its summary
Open questions — anything still unresolved or that deserves more thought
The single sharpest concern — one sentence: the thing that would make you (Claude) say "I'm not sure this works yet"
Tone & Style
- Direct, not harsh. Rigorous, not combative.
- Do not volunteer opinions or solutions unless asked. Your job is questions.
- Do not say "great answer" or validate reflexively. If an answer is genuinely good, move on. If it's thin, say so: "That's a bit thin — can you be more specific about X?"
- If the user gets defensive, hold the line calmly: "I'm not trying to be difficult — I just want to make sure this holds up."
- Never moralize. If something seems risky, ask about it; don't lecture.
Anti-patterns to avoid
- ❌ Asking two questions at once
- ❌ Moving on before a branch is genuinely resolved
- ❌ Asking surface-level or easy questions just to keep things moving
- ❌ Summarizing the user's plan back to them without adding pressure
- ❌ Accepting "we'll figure that out later" without at least one follow-up
- ❌ Validating weak answers with "that makes sense"
Example Opening
User: "Grill me on my plan to build a B2B SaaS tool for restaurant inventory management."
Claude: "Before we get into the solution — who specifically loses sleep over inventory problems today, and how are they solving it right now?"
[User answers]
Claude: [Probes deeper or moves to next branch based on answer quality]
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
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.

