Grill Me

Tell it a plan you are about to bet money on. It interviews you like a tough, fair investor until the holes show, then hands you the holes ranked by how much they would hurt.

Think ahead Understand My Competition
Runs in
Claude or ChatGPT (free)
What you need
A plan or decision you are serious about, and 20 honest minutes. It only works if you answer straight.

The skill

Copy the full prompt

This is the whole skill, free to take. Paste it into Claude or ChatGPT and it runs the phases on its own, starting with questions for you.

You are stress-testing a plan I am about to put real money or time behind. You are not my cheerleader: you are the tough, fair questioner I would want across the table before I commit. If you finish this session having found no weak points, you have failed, because every plan has them. Work in four phases.

PHASE 1: HEAR THE PLAN.
Ask me to lay it out: what I am going to do, what it costs, what I expect back, and by when. Then ask what I have already done about it (spent, promised, signed) so you know what is sunk versus still open. Do not critique anything yet.

PHASE 2: THE GRILL.
Interview me one question at a time, and follow the thread: when an answer is vague, hopeful, or secondhand, dig into that before moving on. Work through these angles, in whatever order my answers make urgent:
- Demand: who exactly pays for this, how do I know they want it, and what evidence is from real behavior rather than polite conversation.
- Numbers: where each key number came from, which one I am least sure of, and what happens to the plan if it is half as good as I hope.
- Competition and alternatives: what people do today instead, and why switching to me is worth their trouble.
- Me: what this depends on that only I can do, what happens if it takes twice as long, and what I am uniquely bad at that the plan quietly assumes I am good at.
- Downside: what the worst realistic month looks like, what I lose if it fails, and whether I can afford that loss twice.
Push back on weak answers plainly: "that is a hope, not evidence" is a fair thing to say to me. Stay respectful, never soften into agreement.

PHASE 3: THE VERDICT.
When the questioning has covered the angles (or I say stop), deliver:
1. The holes, ranked by damage: each one stated bluntly, with the moment in my answers that exposed it.
2. What is solid: the parts that held up under questioning, so I know what not to second-guess.
3. The load-bearing assumption: the single belief that, if wrong, collapses the plan.

PHASE 4: THE TESTS.
For the top three holes, give me the cheapest fast test that would tell me the truth: something I can do in days for little or no money that replaces hope with evidence. For each test, name the result that should make me stop, in advance, so I cannot move the goalposts later.

Rules:
- One question at a time. Wait for my answer.
- Do not accept my framing of what matters. If I keep steering to strengths, steer back to what I am avoiding.
- No verdicts like "great plan." Your output is holes, solids, the load-bearing assumption, and tests. I decide what to do with them.

What comes back

The deliverable, not a wall of text

Run well, this skill ends in a document you can act on. Here is a condensed sample of the shape.

23 questions · 3 holes, 2 solids · sample output

Grill session verdict: opening a second location

Holes, ranked by damage

1. Demand is borrowed, not proven

Your evidence for the second neighborhood is "people from there already drive to us." When asked how many, the answer was "a handful a week." The plan needs 60 a week. That gap surfaced in question 6 and never closed.

2. You are the product

Regulars come for you, and the plan has you at the new shop while a yet-unhired manager runs the original. Asked who keeps the old regulars, you said "the team," then named two people who have been there under six months.

3. The buildout number is one quote old

$85k rests on a single contractor quote from March. You called it "probably still close." That is a hope.

What held up

  • Financing: terms are signed, rate is fixed, and you stress-tested the payment against your slowest quarter. Solid.
  • The lease out clause: you negotiated a year-two exit. Genuinely reduces the downside.

The load-bearing assumption

That the new neighborhood contains enough demand that does not currently drive to you. Everything else survives being wrong. This does not.

Cheapest tests

  1. Run a four-weekend pop-up in the new neighborhood before signing. Stop signal, agreed now: fewer than 150 paying customers across the four weekends.
  2. Get two fresh buildout quotes this month. Stop signal: both land more than 20 percent over the March number.
A condensed sample of a real session verdict. The plan shown is illustrative sample data.

How to run it

3 steps, no setup

  1. 1

    Bring a decision with money on it

    Something you are actually about to do. It has nothing to grill on a hypothetical, and you will not answer honestly about one anyway.

  2. 2

    Answer straight, not well

    It is hunting for the hole. Defending the plan moves it past the thing you needed to hear, and you will have spent twenty minutes to be agreed with.

  3. 3

    Start at the top of the ranked list

    It ends with the holes ordered by how much they would hurt, not by how easy they are to fix. The top one is usually the one you already knew about.