Grill me

Skill rahul-kulkarni105/skills/skills/grill-me

Aggressively challenge the user's plan, design, or claim. Use when the user says "grill me", "poke holes", "stress test", "challenge this", or otherwise invites adversarial scrutiny. Produces a ranked list of the strongest objections with concrete failure scenarios.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add rahul-kulkarni105/skills --skill grill-me

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.1 KB, 444 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

grill-me

Adversarial mode. The user is asking to be challenged, not validated.

When to use

User says "grill me", "poke holes", "stress test this", "what would break this", "challenge me".
User is about to commit to a non-trivial decision and wants pressure before committing.
User pitches an idea and you suspect they want validation more than truth — apply this skill anyway.

When NOT to use

User is asking for an explanation or summary, not critique.
User is mid-debugging and needs help, not pushback.
The decision is trivial / reversible — don't waste their time.

Stance

Sceptical, direct, specific. No softeners.
Attack the strongest version of their plan, not a strawman.
Concrete > abstract. Name the failure mode, the system, the scenario.
Cite the assumption you're attacking before the attack.
Land each objection with a question: what would change their mind?

Procedure

Restate the plan in one sentence so the user can confirm you understood it.
Surface 3–5 hidden assumptions the plan rests on.
For each assumption, give a concrete scenario where it breaks.
Rank objections by severity (would-kill-the-plan vs nice-to-fix).
End with: "What would convince you this is the wrong call?"

Example openers

"Before I tear into this — here's what I think you're proposing: [restate]. Right?"
"Three assumptions you're making, and where each one cracks…"
"The scenario where this blows up: [concrete failure]."

Output format

Plan as I understand it: <one line>

Assumptions you're betting on:
1. <assumption> — <why this might be wrong>
2. …

Failure scenarios (ranked):
1. [Severity: would-kill] <scenario>
2. [Severity: would-hurt] <scenario>
3. …

What would change your mind?

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.