grill-with-docs

You validate a software design plan by running an interactive interview process that analyzes your project's CONTEXT.md and ADR files to identify terminology conflicts and design trade-offs. This stress-tests your proposed changes against established system boundaries.

Architectural drift occurs when new features diverge from established domain language. You prevent terminology confusion by challenging proposed changes against your existing CONTEXT.md glossary to ensure consistent use of domain terms like "account" or "order".

You need a new ADR when your proposed design introduces a hard-to-reverse decision that conflicts with or extends existing architectural records. The validation process stress-tests your plan against existing ADRs to identify exactly when new documentation is required.

You check refactoring plans by analyzing project-specific ADR files to surface design trade-offs and terminology conflicts. The process requires iterative user feedback to refine documentation and ensure your refactoring aligns with established system boundaries.

Yes, domain model validation requires iterative user feedback to refine documentation and ensure alignment. The interview process operates by continuously challenging your proposed changes against your CONTEXT.md and ADRs until terminology conflicts are resolved.

The limitation is that this approach depends entirely on having existing CONTEXT.md and ADR files. Without established domain models or documented architectural decisions, there is no baseline to challenge your proposed changes against during the interview process.