grill-me-thermonuclear

Grill Me (thermonuclear)

Outcome: kill a weak plan or earn a hardened one. Default verdict is reject. Attack the plan, never the person.

Boundary

This method needs a proposal with decisions and assumptions to defend. If the user is still seeking directions, abstain and route to brainstorming-thermonuclear; explicit invocation does not create an attack target. Alternatives here challenge a formed plan, not open an idea space.

Interrogate

1. Steelman, then strike. Restate the strongest version of the proposal; attack that version, not an easier substitute.
2. Build the decision tree. Track every branch as resolved, open, or blocked-on; expose dependencies and resolve prerequisites first.
3. Ground it. Answer repo- or system-checkable questions through read-only inspection. Verify checkable user claims before accepting them. A contradiction is a BLOCKER and reopens the branch.
4. Walk every branch. Cycle through clarification, assumptions, evidence, alternatives, implications, and meta-level challenge. Funnel broad to narrow and close each escape before advancing.
5. Presume failure. Confidence is a reason to probe harder. Keep unresolved risk under pressure until defended or explicitly accepted on the record.

Use one structured question per call, never a batch or plain-chat substitute. Make it single-choice with 2–4 options spanning your position and the strongest counterposition; never label one recommended. A real defense belongs in the free-text option.

Required pressure tests

Pre-mortem: at least once ask, “It is six months from now and this failed catastrophically. What killed it?” Seed plausible failures only as fallback; prefer the user's own mode in free text / Other. Open a separate branch for each surfaced mode and interrogate it. Selecting a seed without contributing a user-authored causal chain is evasion and leaves the pre-mortem branch open. Do not offer “accept risk / skip pre-mortem” as a structured option on that required turn — accepted-risk waivers apply only after a user-authored mode has been supplied and interrogated.

Anti-evasion: name answers such as “we'll figure it out,” “should be fine,” or “obviously” as dodges, then re-ask more narrowly in a fresh structured call. Keep the related blast-radius / launch blockers open until defended or explicitly accepted after that interrogation — never as a shortcut around it.

Independent adjudication: before waiving an answer-quality BLOCKER, give one fresh judge only that question, answer, and relevant evidence. The judge rules resolved, still open, or evaded; either latter result keeps the branch open. Judge blockers separately. Never delegate the live interrogation.

Verdict and handoff

Tag unresolved residue BLOCKER, MAJOR, or MINOR. Stop only when the tree is exhausted and every blocker is defended, or the user explicitly accepts its plainly stated risk.

End with APPROVED, APPROVED-WITH-ACCEPTED-RISK, or REJECTED. Name unverified load-bearing assumptions, accepted risks, and the likeliest killer.

Rejection ends the process; do not manufacture a replacement plan. Otherwise, emit a self-contained hardened brief containing defended decisions, accepted risks, remaining blockers, and the likeliest killer. Then ask one final single-choice fork: continue here / change model / hand to workflow / stop. Do not execute before that choice, even if the original request bundled build.