grill-with-docs

Interview plans to stress-test designs and draft ADRs and glossaries.

345|9|Updated Jun 19, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/dmmulroy/skills --skill grill-with-docs-dmmulroy
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: grill-with-docs
Source: https://github.com/dmmulroy/skills/tree/main/grill-with-docs
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/dmmulroy/skills --skill grill-with-docs-dmmulroy

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps you pressure-test a plan or design before you commit to it, turning vague ideas into clearer decisions and documented outcomes.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Relentless Interviewing: Challenges assumptions, uncovers gaps, and forces concrete answers instead of hand-wavy explanations.
  • Documentation as You Go: Builds ADRs and a glossary during the conversation so decisions and terminology stay captured.
  • Use Case: Use it when refining an architecture proposal, shaping a product plan, or validating a technical direction that needs stronger reasoning and shared language.

Quick Start

Ask this skill to run a grilling session on your plan or design and create ADRs and a glossary as it goes.

Frequently Asked Questions about grill-with-docs

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I stress-test an architecture proposal before implementation?

To stress-test an architecture proposal, you can run a relentless interview session that challenges assumptions, uncovers gaps, and forces concrete answers instead of hand-wavy explanations. This process turns vague ideas into clearer decisions.

Can I draft ADRs and a glossary concurrently during a design review?

Yes, you can draft ADRs and a glossary concurrently during a design review. The grilling workflow captures decisions and standardizes terminology while you refine the technical direction, ensuring shared language and documented outcomes.

What is the best way to validate a product plan without losing critical context?

The best way to validate a product plan is through a structured interview that captures decisions concurrently. By preserving the original proposal for evidence-based critique, you validate technical direction while maintaining clear documentation.

Does this approach work for refining an existing technical direction or only new designs?

This approach works for both refining an existing technical direction and validating new designs. It applies structured challenge, clarity, and captured decisions to architecture reviews, product planning, and design refinement whenever stronger reasoning is needed.

When should I not use a relentless interview for architecture reviews?

You should not use a relentless interview for architecture reviews when your plan or design already has clear decisions, shared language, and documented ADRs. It is specifically designed for situations needing structured challenge to uncover gaps and pressure-test vague ideas.