# Domain Docs

How the engineering skills should consume this repo's domain documentation when exploring the codebase.

## Before exploring, read these

- **`CONTEXT.md`** at the repo root, if it exists.
- **`docs/adr/`** — read ADRs that touch the area you're about to work in.

If any of these files don't exist, **proceed silently**. Don't flag their absence; don't suggest creating them upfront. The `/domain-modeling` skill (reached via `/grill-with-docs` and `/improve-codebase-architecture`) creates them lazily when terms or decisions actually get resolved.

## File structure

Single-context repo (this repo):

```
/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/adr/
│   ├── 0001-....md
│   └── 0002-....md
└── src/
```

## Use the glossary's vocabulary

When your output names a domain concept (in an issue title, a refactor proposal, a hypothesis, a test name), use the term as defined in `CONTEXT.md`. Don't drift to synonyms the glossary explicitly avoids.

If the concept you need isn't in the glossary yet, that's a signal — either you're inventing language the project doesn't use (reconsider) or there's a real gap (note it for `/domain-modeling`).

## New or conflicting terms

When you meet a term that isn't in `CONTEXT.md`:

- **A synonym of an existing term** (e.g. "proxy" for *gateway*): use the canonical term. There's nothing to edit or ask.
- **A genuinely new concept:** add it to `CONTEXT.md` in the same change, as the term, a one- or two-sentence definition and an _Avoid_ list, with no values or config. Name the new term in your final message so the user can veto it.
- **A conflict with an existing definition** (the code or the user uses a term differently than `CONTEXT.md` defines it): stop and ask the user. Redefining a term is their decision.

## Flag ADR conflicts

If your output contradicts an existing ADR, surface it explicitly rather than silently overriding:

> _Contradicts ADR-0007 (event-sourced orders) — but worth reopening because…_