Import AITURK IDE 1.0.0-beta.1 from Hermes 63279301; preserve MIT license
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: grill-me
|
||||
description: "Adversarial plan interview before implementation."
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
author: "Rafael Zendron (rafaumeu) + Matt Pocock (mattpocock/skills, grilling) + Hermes Agent"
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
hermes:
|
||||
tags: [planning, adversarial, interview, decision-tree, pre-implementation, review, alignment]
|
||||
related_skills: [requesting-code-review, subagent-driven-development, test-driven-development]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Grill Me
|
||||
|
||||
Stress-tests a plan through structured adversarial questioning before any
|
||||
code is written. Models the plan as a **design tree** — every decision
|
||||
branches into the decisions that hang off it — and interviews the user in
|
||||
rounds until every branch is resolved and nothing is silently assumed.
|
||||
|
||||
Combines the phase discipline of the original with the frontier-rounds
|
||||
mechanic from mattpocock/skills' `grilling`.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- User says "grill me", "interview my plan", "stress test this idea"
|
||||
- Before complex work: auth flows, schema changes, migrations, payments
|
||||
- A plan has unresolved decisions or seems vague
|
||||
- Before `subagent-driven-development` decomposition
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT use for existing code (use `requesting-code-review`) or simple one-off
|
||||
tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
None. The skill works on any plan or raw idea.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Mechanic: Frontier Rounds
|
||||
|
||||
Map the plan as a design tree. The **frontier** is every decision whose
|
||||
prerequisites are already settled — the questions you can ask NOW without
|
||||
guessing at answers you haven't heard yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Work in **rounds**: ask the whole current frontier in one message, numbered,
|
||||
each question carrying your recommended answer. Then wait. A question whose
|
||||
answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a
|
||||
LATER round, not this one.
|
||||
|
||||
Format each round like so:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
❓ Q1 — <question title>: <question body, options if relevant>
|
||||
➡️ Recommendation: <your recommended answer + one-line why>
|
||||
|
||||
❓ Q2 — <question title>: <question body>
|
||||
➡️ Recommendation: <...>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each answer reshapes the tree: settled decisions push the frontier outward
|
||||
and unblock dependent questions. Recompute the frontier and ask the next
|
||||
round.
|
||||
|
||||
**Facts are your job; decisions are the user's.** When a frontier question
|
||||
needs a fact from the environment (codebase, filesystem, config, docs), find
|
||||
it yourself with `search_files` / `read_file` / `terminal` — or dispatch a
|
||||
subagent via `delegate_task` for a heavy exploration. Never ask the user for
|
||||
anything you could look up. Don't block on an exploration: only the questions
|
||||
downstream of it wait; ask the rest of the frontier now.
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Coverage (work these branches into the tree)
|
||||
|
||||
**Understanding** — the real goal and boundaries:
|
||||
- What is the ACTUAL objective? What is explicitly IN and OUT of scope?
|
||||
- What are the constraints (time, tech, team, budget)? Who are the users?
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical decisions** — for each architectural choice:
|
||||
- "Why this approach and not X?" / "What happens if Y fails?"
|
||||
- "What's the worst case?" / "How would you roll back?"
|
||||
- Cross-reference the existing codebase; if the project already has a
|
||||
pattern for this, call it out.
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge cases:**
|
||||
- "What happens if the user does Z?" / "What if dependency X goes down?"
|
||||
- "What if volume is 100x expected?" / "What are the security implications?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Synthesis (when the frontier is empty)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Summarize ALL decisions in bullet points
|
||||
2. List anything left open, and what is explicitly OUT of scope
|
||||
3. Ask: "Aligned? Should I start implementing, or adjust anything?"
|
||||
|
||||
Do not act on the plan until the user confirms shared understanding.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Asking questions out of dependency order.** A question that depends on
|
||||
an unanswered question is a guess wearing a question mark. Keep it for a
|
||||
later round.
|
||||
2. **Skipping the codebase.** Find facts in code with Hermes tools instead of
|
||||
asking the user.
|
||||
3. **Accepting "I don't know" as final.** Suggest options, explain
|
||||
trade-offs, make a recommendation.
|
||||
4. **Writing code during the interrogation.** Alignment only — code after the
|
||||
explicit green light.
|
||||
5. **Being too agreeable.** Your job is to find problems. If everything looks
|
||||
fine, look harder.
|
||||
6. **Not adapting to the user's language.** Interview in whatever language
|
||||
the user speaks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every question in a round had all its prerequisites already settled
|
||||
- [ ] Provided a recommendation with each question
|
||||
- [ ] Explored the codebase for facts instead of asking the user
|
||||
- [ ] Frontier empty (no branch silently assumed) before synthesizing
|
||||
- [ ] Produced a clear summary of all decisions and open items
|
||||
- [ ] Confirmed user alignment before stopping
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user