From b56795bed1236302f42f61449210bf50cdbb8859 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt Pocock Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:25:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add out-of-scope note for grilling question limits Records the rejection of #44 (request for a hard cap on grilling questions) so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed and so future similar requests can be deduplicated against it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- .out-of-scope/question-limits.md | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .out-of-scope/question-limits.md diff --git a/.out-of-scope/question-limits.md b/.out-of-scope/question-limits.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ec4121 --- /dev/null +++ b/.out-of-scope/question-limits.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +# Hard limits on the number of questions during grilling + +The `/grill-me` skill (and grilling sessions inside other skills) does not enforce a maximum number of questions. Requests to add a configurable cap or hard ceiling are out of scope. + +## Why this is out of scope + +Grilling is intentionally open-ended. The point is to keep digging until each branch of the decision tree is resolved — some plans need three questions, some need fifty. A fixed cap would either cut off useful exploration on hard problems or feel arbitrary on easy ones. + +If a session feels too long, the right escape hatches already exist: + +- The user can stop the session at any time and accept the current state of the plan. +- The user can tell the model to wrap up, summarise, and move on — natural-language steering is the intended control surface, not a numeric limit. + +Adding a hard cap would also conflate two different failure modes: a model that asks too many questions because the plan is genuinely under-specified (working as intended) vs. a model that asks redundant or low-value questions (a prompt-quality issue, not a quantity issue). The fix for the latter belongs in the skill prompt, not in a counter. + +## Prior requests + +- #44 — "Codex just asked me 200 questions"