القائمة
Create an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) document for AI-optimized decision documentation.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | create-architectural-decision-record |
| description | Create an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) document for AI-optimized decision documentation. |
Create an ADR document for ${input:DecisionTitle} using structured formatting optimized for AI consumption and human readability.
${input:Context}${input:Decision}${input:Alternatives}${input:Stakeholders}If any of the required inputs are not provided or cannot be determined from the conversation history, ask the user to provide the missing information before proceeding with ADR generation.
The ADR must be saved in the /docs/development/adr directory using the naming convention: adr-NNNN-[title-slug].md, where NNNN is the next sequential 4-digit number (e.g., adr-0001-database-selection.md).
The documentation file must follow the template below, ensuring that all sections are filled out appropriately. The front matter for the markdown should be structured correctly as per the example following:
---
title: "ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]"
status: "Proposed"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
authors: "[Stakeholder Names/Roles]"
tags: ["architecture", "decision"]
supersedes: ""
superseded_by: ""
---
# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]
## Status
**Proposed** | Accepted | Rejected | Superseded | Deprecated
## Context
[Problem statement, technical constraints, business requirements, and environmental factors requiring this decision.]
## Decision
[Chosen solution with clear rationale for selection.]
## Consequences
### Positive
- **POS-001**: [Beneficial outcomes and advantages]
- **POS-002**: [Performance, maintainability, scalability improvements]
- **POS-003**: [Alignment with architectural principles]
### Negative
- **NEG-001**: [Trade-offs, limitations, drawbacks]
- **NEG-002**: [Technical debt or complexity introduced]
- **NEG-003**: [Risks and future challenges]
## Alternatives Considered
### [Alternative 1 Name]
- **ALT-001**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
- **ALT-002**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]
### [Alternative 2 Name]
- **ALT-003**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
- **ALT-004**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]
## Implementation Notes
- **IMP-001**: [Key implementation considerations]
- **IMP-002**: [Migration or rollout strategy if applicable]
- **IMP-003**: [Monitoring and success criteria]
## References
- **REF-001**: [Related ADRs]
- **REF-002**: [External documentation]
- **REF-003**: [Standards or frameworks referenced]
Create a new MCP tool end-to-end: sub-package, input/output structs, handler, ActionSpec metadata, markdown formatter, tests, catalog projection, and documentation. Use when adding a new GitLab API endpoint as an MCP tool.
Generate comprehensive project documentation including architecture overview, package/component docs, MCP tools/resources/prompts reference, developer onboarding guide, and configuration/deployment guide. Uses Diátaxis framework and Mermaid diagrams.
Increase Go test coverage to 90%+ using a Research → Plan → Implement pipeline. Analyzes coverage gaps, generates table-driven tests with httptest mocks, and validates results with go test -coverprofile. Designed for Go MCP server projects using the official go-sdk and gitlab.com/gitlab-org/api/client-go/v2.
Modularize a monolithic Go package into domain-specific sub-packages. Extracts shared utilities, moves domain files, updates imports, renames types, creates registration functions, and validates compilation+tests at every step. Designed for large-scale refactoring of 50-100+ file packages.
Update existing project documentation to maintain parity with source code changes. Analyzes code diffs, identifies documentation gaps, and surgically updates affected documents while preserving structure and style.
Create evaluation Q&A pairs to test MCP server quality. Use when validating how well an MCP server enables LLMs to accomplish real tasks, benchmarking tool design, or measuring server effectiveness through realistic question-answer evaluations.