grill

To stress-test a plan against domain models and decision records, you need an interrogation workflow that cross-checks proposed terminology and dependencies against your codebase and docs, asking one question at a time to uncover ambiguity and validate architecture trade-offs.

The best way to detect glossary conflicts during design walkthroughs is by comparing user wording against an established CONTEXT.md file, immediately challenging ambiguous terms to ensure domain terminology aligns with recorded decisions and codebase reality.

You validate architecture trade-offs by interrogating plan branches against existing decision artifacts, then updating ADRs inline only when a decision meets stated criteria, while resolving terms directly within CONTEXT.md using required formats.

Yes, you can clarify requirements without overwhelming the process by applying iterative, single-question-at-a-time interrogation, waiting for feedback before proceeding to the next branch of the design walkthrough.

You need to update CONTEXT.md and ADRs during domain modeling when a stress-test uncovers misalignment or a decision meets stated trade-off criteria, resolving terms inline to prevent ambiguity between the proposed plan and established project docs.