Calibrated interrogation of a fuzzy idea before it becomes a spec. Asks one question at a time, recommends an answer, and lands each answer in §G (goal) or §C (constraints) — unknowns parked as `?` items, never guessed. The cheapest place to kill a bad idea is before §T exists. Triggers when the user has a vague idea, says "grill me", "stress-test this", "challenge my plan", "interview me before I spec", or invokes /ck:grill. Defers the actual write to the spec skill.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
One question at a time. Every answer lands in a § or gets parked ?. Never guess a constraint into existence.
Plan-then-execute guesses the fuzzy parts & builds the wrong thing. Grill drags the fuzz into §G/§C before a single §T row exists. A bad assumption caught here costs one question. Caught in §B it costs a bug.
/spec new on anything non-trivial.Skip for a typo or a one-line fix. Grill scales to uncertainty, ⊥ to ego.
One opening read, not a quiz:
Match it. Brutal grilling on a half-formed idea just demoralizes. Light grilling on a committed plan misses the load-bearing flaw.
Climb in order. Each rung, ask one question, recommend an answer, wait.
? §C bullet)Stop climbing the moment the spec would be unambiguous. Do not ask all seven by reflex.
Each question carries a recommended answer so the user can grunt "yes" & move:
Q: auth — session cookie or JWT? rec: JWT — stateless, you named horizontal scaling as a §C. (a) JWT (b) cookie (c) something else?
When done, emit a compact block — goal line, constraint bullets, surfaced
unknowns as ? — and hand to the spec skill to write §G/§C. Grill proposes;
spec is the sole mutator. Never write SPEC.md directly.
Done when ALL hold:
?.Unresolved blocking unknown that needs the outside world → recommend /research, not a guess.
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
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。
Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Caveman encoding for SPEC.md and spec-adjacent writes. Loaded by /spec, /build, /check. Cuts tokens ~75% vs prose while staying precise. Triggers on any write to SPEC.md or when user says "caveman", "compress this", "be brief".
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Read-only drift detector. Diffs SPEC.md against current code and reports violations grouped by severity. Writes nothing — suggests remedies via the spec or build skills but never invokes them. Triggers when the user asks to check drift, audit the spec, verify invariants, or ask whether code still matches the spec. Phrasings: "check drift", "audit the spec", "does the code still match §V", "check invariants", "spec vs code".
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Optional design-improvement pass for when you have spare usage to drain. Finds the shallowest modules in the code the spec touches, researches a deeper design, and proposes refactors that shrink interfaces and hide decisions — behavior held constant, tests green before and after. Proposes §I/§V/§T edits, never silent rewrites. Triggers when the user says "deepen this", "improve the design", "this module feels shallow", "pull complexity down", "use spare budget on the codebase", or invokes /ck:deepen. Leans on the codebase-design skill's deep-module vocabulary when present.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Gather external knowledge the spec needs and distill it into §R — the durable research log — so build grounds in facts instead of hallucinating library behavior. Each finding cites a source; unsourced claims are flagged, never written as fact. Triggers when a spec decision hinges on a library/API/best practice the agent is unsure of, when the user says "research this", "what's the best lib for…", "check current best practice", or invokes /ck:research. Defers the §R write to the spec skill.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。