grill-with-docs

Validating a design plan against domain documentation requires iteratively questioning assumptions against your CONTEXT.md and ADRs to eliminate ambiguous terminology. This process updates glossary definitions inline and records ADRs only for hard-to-reverse trade-offs.

Domain terminology alignment ensures your plan's wording matches existing project definitions in CONTEXT.md. Detecting glossary conflicts early prevents design drift by forcing shared terminology and resolving architectural scope boundaries before implementation.

Writing an ADR for technology lock-in decisions should occur only when a trade-off is truly hard to reverse. The Skill resolves terminology conflicts first, updating CONTEXT.md inline, and offers ADR generation solely for these significant architectural choices.

Yes, you can validate integration patterns across multi-context repositories. The Skill applies boundary and scope clarifications by exploring CONTEXT.md and ADRs iteratively, asking one question at a time until terminology aligns across all repository contexts.

Stress-testing architectural plans against a codebase glossary involves a relentless domain interview. It questions every assumption in your proposed design against existing documented decisions, ensuring intent matches the domain model and resolving ambiguous terms inline.

You should not use ADRs for routine domain modeling decisions. ADRs are reserved exclusively for hard-to-reverse trade-offs, while standard terminology alignment and scope clarifications are handled through inline updates to CONTEXT.md.