grill-with-docs

To validate an architecture plan against your domain model, interrogate the proposed design's terminology, dependencies, and trade-offs one question at a time. This ensures shared understanding and aligns the plan with your existing domain truth.

You need to write an ADR during codebase validation only when a real, hard-to-reverse, and surprising trade-off is identified. ADRs should be created sparingly to document significant architectural decisions rather than routine resolutions.

To fix conflicting terminology during domain-driven design planning, detect fuzzy or overloaded terms and propose precise canonical alternatives. Once resolved, immediately update your CONTEXT.md to maintain glossary alignment across the codebase.

You can stress-test integration dependencies theoretically, but exploring the codebase when possible is recommended. Codebase exploration grounds the interrogation in actual implementation constraints, ensuring plan validation reflects technical reality.

The best way to maintain glossary alignment when planning new features is to relentlessly interrogate domain terms and update CONTEXT.md immediately as they resolve. This prevents misunderstandings and hidden design debt during architecture planning.

Architecture review using this approach requires one-question-at-a-time progression to walk through every branch of a design tree. This forces decision-by-decision alignment and ensures all terminology and dependencies are fully clarified.