| name | architecture-decisions |
| description | Use when documenting architecture decisions as ADRs, evaluating trade-offs between alternatives, or managing the lifecycle of existing decisions. Covers ADR template, status transitions, consequence analysis, and quality criteria. |
Architecture Decisions
Overview
Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) are lightweight documents that capture architectural decisions together with their context, alternatives considered, and consequences. They are the institutional memory of the architecture.
Purpose: An ADR answers the question: "Why does the architecture look the way it does?" Future readers — including future you — should be able to understand any structural decision without needing to ask the original author.
Core rule: One ADR per decision. A decision is a single, clear choice with trade-offs.
ADR Template
Blank Template
# ADR-{NNN}: {Short Title}
**Status:** Proposed | Accepted | Rejected | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-{NNN}
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
## Context
{Describe the situation and the forces that led to this decision. What problem were you solving? What constraints were in play? Why was a decision needed at all?}
## Decision
{State the decision clearly and directly. Start with "We will..." or "We have decided to...". One paragraph, maximum. Avoid explaining why here — that belongs in Context and Alternatives.}
## Consequences
**Positive:**
- {benefit 1}
- {benefit 2}
**Negative / trade-offs:**
- {trade-off 1}
- {trade-off 2}
**Neutral:**
- {change that is neither good nor bad but worth noting}
## Alternatives Rejected
| Alternative | Reason rejected |
|---|---|
| {option A} | {why not chosen — specific, not a strawman} |
| {option B} | {why not chosen — specific, not a strawman} |
Filled Example — Auto Insurance Domain
# ADR-001: Apply CQRS for Eligibility Check
**Status:** Accepted
**Date:** 2026-05-01
## Context
The eligibility check feature has distinct read and write concerns. The command side modifies eligibility state and raises the `EligibilityChecked` domain event. The query side needs to return a lightweight `EligibilityResult` read model optimised for display in the driver portal. Using a single model for both would force a compromise: either the domain model is polluted with display concerns, or the read model is burdened with invariant enforcement.
## Decision
We will apply simple CQRS: separate command handlers (mutate state, raise events) from query handlers (return read models). Both sides share the same relational database but use separate models. Command handlers write to the `eligibility` table via the domain aggregate. Query handlers read from an `eligibility_read` view or projection table.
## Consequences
**Positive:**
- Command and query models evolve independently — adding a display field does not touch the domain model
- Read models can be optimised (indexed, denormalised) without affecting domain logic
- Aligns with the event model produced in the Event Modeling session
**Negative / trade-offs:**
- Two code paths to maintain instead of one
- Slight increase in complexity for features that are simple reads/writes
- Developers must understand which side to modify when changing behaviour
**Neutral:**
- No separate database or event store required at this stage — keeping full CQRS as a future option if read volume grows
## Alternatives Rejected
| Alternative | Reason rejected |
|---|---|
| Single CRUD service (no CQRS) | Would mix mutation and query concerns in one model, forcing compromises in both directions as the feature grows |
| Full CQRS with separate stores | Over-engineering for current scale; no read replica needed yet |
File Naming
adr-{NNN}-{slug}.md
Examples:
adr-001-cqrs-eligibility.mdadr-002-aggregate-boundary-eligibility.mdadr-003-event-sourcing.md (slug names the topic; verdict lives in the Status: field — Accepted or Rejected)
Rules:
- Numbers are three digits, zero-padded:
001, not 1
- Slugs are lowercase kebab-case, derived from the short title
- Slugs name the SUBJECT, never the verdict. Forbidden suffixes:
-rejected, -accepted, -deprecated, -superseded. The verdict lives in Status:.
- Gaps in numbering are forbidden — never skip a number
- Numbers are never reused — a deprecated ADR keeps its number
Status and Lifecycle
Proposed → Accepted → Deprecated
↘ Rejected → Superseded by ADR-{NNN}
- Proposed: Decision is drafted, committed, and awaiting human ratification
- Accepted: Option was evaluated and adopted — the architecture reflects it
- Rejected: Option was evaluated and explicitly declined — the ADR records the analysis so the debate is not re-run later without new evidence
- Deprecated: Decision is no longer relevant (e.g., the feature was removed), but was never superseded
- Superseded: Decision has been replaced by a newer one — always reference the successor
Linking rule: When ADR-002 supersedes ADR-001:
- ADR-001 status:
Superseded by ADR-002
- ADR-002 context: reference ADR-001 — "This supersedes ADR-001, which prescribed X."
No ADR is ever deleted. The historical record of why a decision was made is as valuable as the decision itself.
Human-in-the-loop ratification
The Proposed → Accepted | Rejected transition is owned by a human, not the agent. The ratification channel is supplied by the execution context (the orchestrating workflow when running in an agentic pipeline, or an in-terminal prompt when running locally) — this skill does not prescribe the channel.
Both transitions are committed: the Proposed revision AND the final Accepted / Rejected revision land in git history. The trail of "we paused here for a human" is part of the architectural record.
Rejected ADRs
A Rejected ADR documents that an option was seriously evaluated and the team decided NOT to adopt it. The ADR exists so the same debate is not re-opened in six months without new evidence.
- Filename: named after the SUBJECT —
adr-NNN-event-sourcing.md, NEVER adr-NNN-event-sourcing-rejected.md. The verdict lives in Status:, not in the filename.
- Decision phrasing: MAY start with "We will not adopt X because…" — this is precisely what a
Rejected status means.
- Trigger requirement: a
Rejected ADR is written ONLY when a story or measurable force in the current batch raised the question (see G9 traceability). A Rejected ADR with no triggering story is a non-decision artefact and is forbidden.
- Alternatives Rejected section is flipped: list what the team adopted INSTEAD (e.g., "state-based persistence with audit-log table").
When to Write an ADR
Write an ADR for any decision that:
- Establishes or changes a layer boundary
- Chooses an aggregate boundary
- Adopts or rejects a pattern (CQRS, Event Sourcing, Saga, Specification)
- Establishes a bounded context boundary
- Chooses a context mapping relationship (ACL, Conformist, etc.)
- Affects a cross-cutting concern (error handling strategy, validation approach)
When NOT to Write an ADR
Do not write an ADR for:
- Implementation details (naming conventions, code formatting)
- Library version choices — unless the version has architectural impact (e.g., switching from EF Core to Dapper changes the data access strategy)
- Configuration choices (connection string format, environment variable names)
Trade-off Framework
Every ADR must demonstrate genuine trade-off analysis — not a decision with only upsides.
The 5 Universal Forces
| Force | Question |
|---|
| Simplicity | Does this make the system easier to understand and change? |
| Consistency | Does this fit the patterns already established in this codebase? |
| Performance | Does this meet the performance requirements without over-engineering? |
| Evolvability | Does this make future changes easier or harder? |
| Team capability | Can the current team maintain this without a steep learning curve? |
Trade-off Analysis Template
| Force | Option A | Option B | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplicity | High | Low | High |
| Consistency | High | Medium | Medium |
| Performance | Medium | High | Low |
| Evolvability | High | High | High |
| Team capability | High | Low | High |
| → Score | 4.2 | 2.8 | |
Use this table in the Context section when the decision is genuinely hard. Skip it for obvious decisions.
ADR Quality Checklist
Before writing the final ADR, verify:
References
