grill-me-with-docs

To validate a feature plan against existing project documentation, you can challenge the plan by reviewing CONTEXT.md, ADRs, and spec documents to surface inconsistencies, ambiguities, and misaligned domain terminology before implementation starts.

Keeping ADRs and glossary entries aligned during planning involves pressure-testing architectural choices against the current domain language, detecting vague or overloaded terms, and writing inline documentation updates when decisions or terms are stable enough to capture.

Yes, you can use CONTEXT.md to detect conflicting terminology in a feature spec by challenging the spec against established domain language, identifying overloaded or ambiguous terms, and proposing clearer canonical language for the codebase.

To record architectural decisions inline when refining a plan, validate the choices against existing ADR history and spec documents, then write or update ADR entries directly when the decision is durable enough to document across the codebase.

You need to stress-test a plan against domain language and ADRs when a team is planning a new feature and wants to ensure it fits the established domain model, avoiding conflicting assumptions before implementation begins.

This approach requires existing spec documents, a glossary, and ADR history to function effectively, as it relies on challenging new plans against these established records to surface inconsistencies and refine terminology.