grill-with-docs

To uncover implicit assumptions, you need a structured discussion that challenges your plan against the project's domain model and documented decisions to identify unspoken premises and ensure terminology clarity.

Your feature plan conflicts with the domain model when it relies on implicit assumptions that contradict documented decisions, requiring a validation session to compare plans against existing architecture for consistency and feasibility.

You validate plans against a domain model by initiating a structured discussion session that compares proposed features against documented decisions, ensuring alignment and surfacing any terminology inconsistencies or implicit assumptions.

Yes, you need existing project documentation to challenge plans effectively, as the validation process requires access to the domain model and the ability to create or modify Architecture Decision Records to reflect new findings.

The best way to maintain documentation during validation is to update inline CONTEXT.md files and ADRs continuously, ensuring that domain model decisions and newly surfaced implicit assumptions are accurately reflected during the session.

You should avoid domain model validation sessions when you lack existing project documentation or the ability to modify ADRs, as the process depends on comparing unspoken assumptions against documented architectural decisions to function correctly.