grill-with-docs

You validate software architecture plans against project-specific domain models by conducting interactive interviews to resolve terminology conflicts and verify design consistency. This process challenges proposed plans against established documentation to prevent design drift.

The best way to align new features with documented architectural decisions is to validate design choices against existing ADRs. This ensures major architectural trade-offs are properly documented and maintains decision integrity across complex system contexts.

An interactive design interview resolves domain terminology conflicts by challenging proposed plans against existing terminology in CONTEXT.md. It verifies that terms like "Order" or "Invoice" are used correctly and ensures design consistency across complex system contexts.

Yes, checking design consistency across complex systems requires adherence to established documentation formats for context definitions and architectural decision tracking. You must maintain CONTEXT.md and ADRs to properly validate new design choices.

You should stress-test system design against domain-driven design documentation when planning a new feature integration. This addresses the gap between high-level architectural plans and actual domain language, preventing technical debt and design drift.

Your feature plan drifts from established project domain language due to a gap between high-level architectural plans and actual documented decisions. Validating plans against CONTEXT.md and ADRs prevents this drift and maintains terminology consistency.