agentleFS
wizspecwizspec/agent-workflows/skills/grill/SKILL.md

grill

Skill3 starsChanged 55 days agoMITView on GitHub

Interrogate a plan, design, or decision one question at a time until it holds up, capturing the agreed vocabulary in a glossary and each hard call as a written decision as they settle. Use when the user asks to grill, stress-test, or pressure-test their thinking; not for routine implementation work or questions that have a single correct answer.

87 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use write-skill, root-cause 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.
  • NoaiRoxSkill

    write-skill

    Use when creating a new skill, editing an existing skill, or verifying a skill works before deployment.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • Ingramradical235Skill

    root-cause

    Structured root cause analysis using WHERE (MECE decomposition) then WHY (causal structure diagrams) pipeline. Includes coin-flip detection, logical-leap detection, and vicious cycle intervention. Use when buffer enters YELLOW/RED, when metrics stall, or when Actions execute but don't produce results.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • Neko-Catpital-LabsSkill

    prove-it

    Shared evidence rule for investigating, diagnosing, debugging, proving, or explaining what happened or why for any problem or situation: do not assert something is fixed, working, passing, merged, or running unless you personally observed it this turn and can show what you saw; do not assert it was caused by X until a repro and controlled isolation prove that cause.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • sahinSkill

    execute

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • assisjpSkill

    file-pr

    Prepare and open or update an authorized pull request with a concise problem-first description and verifiable evidence. Use when the user asks to create, file, open, or update a PR. Do not use merely to review a diff or when publication is not authorized.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Arman-KudaibergenovSkill

    write-plan

    Этот скилл MUST быть вызван когда есть design.md и нужно разбить доработку на атомарные задачи (2-5 мин) с точными путями файлов и критериями проверки в tasks.md. SHOULD также вызывать как промежуточный шаг между brainstorm и subagent-dev. Do NOT использовать для обсуждения идеи — используй brainstorm; для выполнения задач — используй subagent-dev.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 69 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not act on the plan until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask one question at a time and wait for the answer before moving on.

    line 33
  3. Very specific:

    Challenge terms that conflict with the glossary: When the user uses a term in a way the existing CONTEXT.md does not support, say so …

    line 48
  4. Distinctive:

    Replace fuzzy words with a canonical one: When a term is vague or overloaded, propose something precise: "You're saying account — do you …

    line 52
  5. Distinctive:

    Check claims against the code: When the user states how something works, verify it.

    line 58
  6. Very specific:

    Write things down during the session rather than afterwards.

    line 64
  7. Very specific:

    Keep CONTEXT.md a glossary and nothing else.

    line 71
  8. Distinctive:

    If any of the three is missing, skip it.

    line 80
  9. Distinctive:

    Stop when the user confirms the shared understanding, not when you run out of questions.

    line 88

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 69 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

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan, design, or decision until you reach a shared understanding, and write down the language and the decisions the moment they crystallise.

The interview and the documentation are one activity. Grilling is what surfaces the vocabulary and the trade-offs; capturing them immediately is what stops the same ground being retrodden next week. Writing up afterwards loses the precision that the questioning just bought.

Do not act on the plan until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding.

Read the model before the first question

Find the project's existing domain model and read it before opening the interview:

  • a CONTEXT-MAP.md at the repository root means the project has several contexts, and it records where each one lives;
  • otherwise a root CONTEXT.md means a single context; and
  • neither means nothing has been written down yet.

Existing decisions usually live in docs/wizspec/decisions/, with context-specific decisions beside the context they belong to. Read what is already there. You cannot challenge a term as inconsistent without knowing what the project has already agreed it means.

Run the interview

Ask one question at a time and wait for the answer before moving on. Asking several at once is bewildering and produces shallow replies.

Walk down each branch of the decision tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one by one. Take the decisions that constrain later ones first.

For every question, give your own recommended answer and the reasoning behind it. An interview without recommendations just pushes the work back onto the user.

Separate facts from decisions. When a fact can be settled by exploring the environment — reading files, running a query, checking a configuration — look it up instead of asking. The decisions are the user's: put each one to them and wait for their answer.

Sharpen the language as you go

Challenge terms that conflict with the glossary. When the user uses a term in a way the existing CONTEXT.md does not support, say so immediately: "Your glossary defines cancellation as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"

Replace fuzzy words with a canonical one. When a term is vague or overloaded, propose something precise: "You're saying account — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."

Stress-test relationships with concrete scenarios. Invent specific cases that probe edge conditions and force the user to be precise about where one concept ends and the next begins.

Check claims against the code. When the user states how something works, verify it. Surface any contradiction you find: "Your code cancels whole Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"

Capture decisions as they crystallise

Write things down during the session rather than afterwards. Create files lazily: add a CONTEXT.md when the first term is resolved, and a docs/wizspec/decisions/ directory when the first decision is warranted.

Update the glossary inline. The moment a term is settled, add it to the appropriate CONTEXT.md using references/context-format.md. Do not batch these up.

Keep CONTEXT.md a glossary and nothing else. It is not a spec, a scratch pad, or a home for implementation detail or for decisions that belong in a record.

Offer to write a decision down sparingly. Propose it only when all three of these are true:

  1. Hard to reverse — changing your mind later carries a meaningful cost.
  2. Surprising without context — a future reader will wonder why it was done this way.
  3. The result of a real trade-off — genuine alternatives existed and one was chosen for reasons.

If any of the three is missing, skip it. An easily reversed decision will simply be reversed, an unsurprising one prompts no questions, and where there was no alternative there is nothing to record beyond having done the obvious thing. Use references/decision-format.md for the template, the numbering, and the kinds of decisions that qualify.

Close the session

Stop when the user confirms the shared understanding, not when you run out of questions. Before handing back, say what was written down, what remains unresolved, and which decisions the user deferred rather than settled.

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.