Skill: Grill with Docs

Stress-testing a plan against CONTEXT.md and ADRs detects terminology conflicts by identifying mismatches between proposed concepts and canonical domain terms. This prevents domain drift by ensuring naming boundaries align with your existing documentation through targeted clarification and scenario validation.

Stress-testing domain-driven design boundaries against documentation is needed during architecture and feature planning when domain boundaries, naming, and assumptions must match CONTEXT.md. It uses scenario validation to reveal fuzzy boundaries and prevents language drift before hard-to-reverse decisions are made.

Update CONTEXT.md and ADRs after feature planning by synchronizing your domain map with targeted documentation snippets. Generate only the necessary ADRs to capture hard-to-reverse decisions, ensuring the canonical terminology reflects the validated scenarios and clarified assumptions from the planning session.

Yes, scenario-based stress testing validates fuzzy domain boundaries by challenging designs using concrete scenarios and edge cases. This targeted clarification exposes mismatched assumptions, ensuring your proposed plan aligns with canonical terms and preventing language drift before you finalize architecture decisions.

The best way to prevent domain drift when proposing new architecture decisions is to apply disciplined single-question interviewing against existing CONTEXT.md and ADRs. This codebase-first exploration outputs canonical recommendations, scenario validations, and targeted doc update snippets to keep terminology aligned.

Feature plans drift from canonical domain terminology when proposed concepts and assumptions are not validated against existing CONTEXT.md and ADRs. Without targeted clarification and scenario-based stress testing, fuzzy boundaries and language mismatches propagate into hard-to-reverse architecture decisions.