adr-writer

name	adr-writer
description	Write Architecture Decision Records in Nygard format. Triggers on architectural choices, approach comparisons, or undocumented past decisions.

ADR Writer

When to activate

• Making a decision between two or more technical approaches (e.g., choosing an ORM, picking a caching strategy, selecting a queue system)
• After a decision was made verbally in a meeting or chat and needs formal documentation
• When the codebase shows an unusual pattern and there is no explanation for why it was chosen
• Before committing to a hard-to-reverse architectural change (database schema, authentication model, API versioning)
• When a decision affects multiple teams or services and needs a clear paper trail

When NOT to use

• Implementation details that are easily changed without impact (variable naming, folder structure within a single module)
• Decisions that are purely stylistic with no trade-offs
• Third-party dependency version bumps unless they introduce breaking behavior
• Decisions that are fully reversible in under an hour with no downstream effects

Instructions

What qualifies as an ADR

A decision warrants an ADR if all three are true:

1. It is hard to reverse — undoing it takes significant effort or causes downstream impact
2. It would be surprising without context — a new developer reading the code would wonder why
3. A real trade-off existed — there was at least one plausible alternative considered and rejected

If unsure, write the ADR. The cost of documenting a non-event is low; the cost of missing documentation for a load-bearing decision is high.

ADR format (Nygard)

# ADR-[NNNN]: [Short Title in Noun Phrase Form]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Status:** [Accepted | Superseded by ADR-NNNN | Deprecated]
**Supersedes:** [ADR-NNNN if applicable, else omit]

## Context

[2–4 sentences: what situation or problem forced this decision?
Include relevant constraints: team size, timeline, existing stack, external requirements.]

## Decision

[One sentence, active voice, present tense.
"We will use X for Y because Z." Not "It was decided that..."]

## Rationale

[Why this option over the alternatives?
Focus on the specific factors that made this the right choice for this context.
Avoid generic praise — "it's popular" is not rationale.]

## Alternatives Considered

| Option | Why rejected |
|---|---|
| [Alternative A] | [Specific reason it lost] |
| [Alternative B] | [Specific reason it lost] |

## Consequences

**Positive:**
- [What this makes easier or better]

**Negative:**
- [What this makes harder or introduces as new complexity]

**Neutral:**
- [Changes that are neither good nor bad, just different]

## Review Date

[Date 6–12 months from now, or the event that should trigger review: "Review when team exceeds 10 engineers" or "Review after first production incident involving X"]

Storage and numbering

• Store in docs/decisions/ or docs/adr/ — pick one and never mix
• Filename: ADR-0001-kebab-case-title.md, ADR-0002-...
• Numbering is sequential and never reused — even if an ADR is deprecated
• When superseding an ADR: update the old ADR's Status to Superseded by ADR-NNNN, link the new ADR back to the old one

Linking superseded ADRs

When a decision changes:

# ADR-0007: Switch from REST to GraphQL for Client API

**Status:** Accepted
**Supersedes:** ADR-0003 (REST-first API design)

And update the old ADR:

**Status:** Superseded by ADR-0007

What NOT to include

• Implementation details (which library version, exact config values) — those belong in README or inline comments
• Team member names — use roles ("backend team", "CTO") if attribution is needed
• Predictions about the future — stick to what is known now
• Copy-pasted marketing text from a vendor's website

Example

Scenario: The team chose Drizzle ORM over Prisma for a new TypeScript project.

Generated ADR:

# ADR-0004: Drizzle ORM over Prisma for Data Access Layer

**Date:** 2026-05-23
**Status:** Accepted

## Context

Selecting an ORM for a new TypeScript API that will interact with PostgreSQL.
The project has a small team (2 engineers), tight performance requirements on
bulk insert operations, and an existing schema already defined as SQL migrations.
The team has prior experience with both options.

## Decision

We will use Drizzle ORM for all database access because it gives us type-safe
queries without a code generation step and does not abstract away raw SQL when
we need it.

## Rationale

Drizzle treats SQL as the source of truth, which aligns with our existing
hand-written migration files. Prisma's schema-first model would require
duplicating table definitions. On bulk insert benchmarks against our target
dataset size (500k rows/batch), Drizzle ran 2.3× faster in our prototype.
Prisma's generated client adds ~100ms cold start which matters in our
serverless deployment context.

## Alternatives Considered

| Option | Why rejected |
|---|---|
| Prisma 5 | Code generation step adds CI complexity; schema-first conflicts with our existing SQL migrations; slower cold start |
| Raw pg client | Too much boilerplate for query building; no type inference on query results |
| Kysely | Strong contender — rejected only because team has no prior Kysely experience and Drizzle's API is more familiar |

## Consequences

**Positive:**
- Query results are typed without a build step
- Direct SQL escape hatch available without leaving the ORM
- Smaller bundle size than Prisma

**Negative:**
- Drizzle's ecosystem is smaller than Prisma's — fewer community plugins
- Migration tooling (drizzle-kit) is less mature than Prisma Migrate

**Neutral:**
- Team must learn Drizzle's query builder syntax

## Review Date

2027-05-23, or if a Prisma 6 release significantly addresses the cold start issue.

---