grill-with-docs

To stress-test a plan against domain documentation, you challenge each proposed decision branch one question at a time, flagging fuzzy terminology and updating the glossary inline to ensure alignment with the codebase's canonical language.

You should create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) during a plan review only when a resolved architectural choice is hard to reverse, surprising, and driven by explicit trade-offs within your domain model.

To resolve conflicting terminology in a codebase, you pressure-test the plan against repository documentation, push for precise canonical language, and update the CONTEXT.md glossary inline as decisions are finalized.

Yes, walking a proposed plan down each branch of the decision tree against existing repository docs uncovers ambiguity, conflicts, and missing dependencies before you begin implementation.

The best way to validate assumptions against a domain model is through relentless design interrogation, asking one question at a time to clarify the solution shape and update documentation like ADRs when trade-offs are resolved.

Yes, effective plan review requires inline updates to CONTEXT.md as terminology and decisions are resolved, ensuring the documented domain model stays synchronized with the validated design.