Scan to join WeChat groupInterview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
</what-to-do> <supporting-info>Domain awareness
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
File structure
Most repos have a single context:
/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/
│ └── adr/
│ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/
If a CONTEXT-MAP.md exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│ ├── ordering/
│ │ ├── CONTEXT.md
│ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions
│ └── billing/
│ ├── CONTEXT.md
│ └── docs/adr/
Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no CONTEXT.md exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no docs/adr/ exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
If neither CONTEXT.md nor docs/adr/ exists, still run the full grilling session — just skip the doc updates and focus purely on the interview.
During the session
Challenge against the glossary
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in CONTEXT.md, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
Sharpen fuzzy language
When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
Discuss concrete scenarios
When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
Cross-reference with code
When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
Update CONTEXT.md inline
When a term is resolved and CONTEXT.md exists (or should be created), update it right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen.
CONTEXT.md format:
# {Context Name}
{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
## Language
**Order**:
{A one or two sentence description of the term}
_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction
**Invoice**:
A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
_Avoid_: Bill, payment request
Rules for CONTEXT.md:
- Be opinionated — pick the best term and list others as aliases to avoid
- Keep definitions tight — one or two sentences, define what it IS
- Only include terms specific to this project's domain (not general programming concepts)
- Group terms under subheadings when natural clusters emerge
CONTEXT.md should be totally devoid of implementation details. It is a glossary and nothing else.
Offer ADRs sparingly
Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
- Hard to reverse — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
- Surprising without context — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
- The result of a real trade-off — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR.
ADR format — lives in docs/adr/ with sequential numbering: 0001-slug.md, 0002-slug.md.
# {Short title of the decision}
{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. Only add Status, Considered Options, or Consequences sections when they add genuine value.
</supporting-info>