跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

grill-with-docs

One-question-at-a-time design interrogation. Use when: 'grill me', 'interrogate this', 'one question at a time', 'brainstorm', 'let's brainstorm', 'let's discuss', 'lets discuss', 'discuss', 'walk me through', or design review start. Produces ADRs and glossary as decisions settle. Use for unsettled designs; for settled designs go straight to architecture-mode. When the design is unsettled and also has high ambiguity, several technical approaches, or security/data risk, load architecture-mode alongside.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

grill-with-docs

Adapted from https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/engineering/grill-with-docs (MIT License). Vendored as a core workspace skill.

A relentless, docs-aware interview that sharpens a plan or design one question at a time — and writes durable documentation (ADRs, glossary) as the answers settle.

When to load

  • Architect: load before any design interrogation, brainstorm session, scoping session, or ADR work where the design is not yet settled
  • Publishing Lead (future): load before any topic approval, editorial review, or release gating decision

Companion skills

  • architecture-mode: load at the start when the design is unsettled and also has high ambiguity, several technical approaches, or security/data risk; it shapes the questions (intake checklist, quality attributes).
  • documentation-and-adrs: load when writing the ADR entries; it is the format authority.
  • assumptions-audit: optional, before closing (see Protocol step 6).

Protocol

  1. One question at a time. Never ask multiple questions in a single turn. Identify the most important open question, ask it, and wait for the answer before moving on.
  2. Evidence first. When an answer is ambiguous or abstract, ask for a concrete example before accepting it.
  3. State a recommendation once you have a basis for one. When enough context has been established to form a real view, state a concrete recommendation with reasoning before presenting alternatives — do not default to a neutral menu of options when there is enough information to have an opinion. Early in a session, when little is settled yet, open questions without a stated opinion remain appropriate. The user disagreeing with a stated recommendation is a fine, expected outcome; offering no recommendation at all when one could have been formed is the failure mode to avoid.
  4. Name load-bearing assumptions. When an answer closes a design option, state the assumption explicitly before moving to the next question.
  5. Write as you go. After each settled decision, immediately update the WAL — write the decision to the HOT section of memory/<agent>.md (or the active storage plugin's memory store on vault-backed tiers — see the storage-plugin note below) — then draft the corresponding ADR entry or glossary term inline. Do not batch documentation for after the session. Do not advance to the next question before the WAL/memory entry is written.
  6. Close with docs (VBR required). When the session concludes:
    • Produce one ADR per settled decision, a glossary of key terms introduced, and any scope exclusions made explicit.
    • Optionally load ui-audit-lens when the interrogation is about UI standards, a design system, or a concrete UI surface — worthwhile when the settled decision needs a research snapshot, structured audit findings, or a pre-handoff UI state coverage gate before the docs are written.
    • Optionally load assumptions-audit for a structured pass over the settled decision before writing the ADRs — worthwhile when the interrogation surfaced enough edge cases or scope ambiguity to warrant a second, structured look. Not required for every session.
    • Verify Before Reporting: confirm each ADR file exists under docs/decisions/ with the decision and rationale documented before declaring the session closed.

Session flow

Start   → State the design question, plan, or topic under interrogation (one sentence)
Grill   → One question → answer → assumption check → WAL update → document → next question
Close   → ADR per decision + glossary + explicit exclusions

Do not

  • Ask compound questions ("and also, what about…")
  • Accept vague answers without requesting a concrete example
  • Advance to the next question before the current answer is settled and documented
  • Advance to the next question before the WAL/memory entry is written (do not outrun the WAL)
  • Defer documentation to after the session ends
  • Default to a neutral A/B/C-style menu of options once enough context exists to state a real recommendation — lead with the recommendation and reasoning, note alternatives only if useful

Storage-plugin note

Storage-plugin note (memory/<agent>.md reference in the WAL step above): before writing to memory/<agent>.md, check for an active storage plugin file at skills/agent-foundations/storage/*.md — the same presence-gated check agent-foundations's Memory Path Resolution protocol uses. If no plugin file is present, the literal memory/<agent>.md path is correct as-is (free-tier default). If a plugin file is present (vault-backed hub type, e.g. dev:sub/ops), the literal repo-relative path is wrong — write instead via that plugin's write-memory-entry(agent, 'HOT', content) operation (see agent-foundations's Memory Path Resolution protocol and the active plugin file, e.g. storage/obsidian.md, for the authoritative procedure). Writing to the literal path on a vault-backed tier creates a stray file outside the vault, bypassing the knowledge index.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Universal guardrails loaded by every agent. Defines Verify Before Reporting (VBR), Write-Ahead Log (WAL), and the security baseline. Always-on, role-independent.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: architecture mode, architect this, ADR, C4, PlantUML, system boundary, design decision, PRD gap, high ambiguity, multiple technical approaches, security architecture, data architecture, integration risk, implementability gap, story ticket, or epic ticket.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: assumptions audit, audit assumptions, check for hidden assumptions, plan/ticket has ambiguous scope edges, pre-flight before finalizing a ticket, unstated assumptions, or 'what am I assuming'. Surfaces unstated assumptions, ambiguous scope edges, and untested preconditions in a finished plan/ticket/ADR before it is handed to Builder. Optional pass — Architect judges when to apply it; not a mandatory gate on every ticket.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: Tester needs UI state evidence for VBR, or Builder needs to verify an integration wire is observable end-to-end. Powered by agent-browser MCP — token-efficient browser automation (200–400 tokens/page).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when drafting a bug or defect ticket, reviewing one someone else wrote, or deciding whether a reported problem is ready to file. Keeps what the reporter actually saw separate from what the agent later found out, so a reader can tell which lines are testimony and which are collected proof. Trigger phrases: 'file a bug', 'write up this defect', 'triage this report', 'is this ticket ready to file', 'what did the reporter actually see'.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

查看 Agistra 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题