Creates and maintains Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) — structured documents that capture the context, decision, consequences, and alternatives for significant architectural choices. Use when recording a new technical decision, updating the status of an existing ADR, or reviewing the ADR log for consistency and completeness.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Creates and maintains Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) — structured documents that capture the context, decision, consequences, and alternatives for significant architectural choices. Use when recording a new technical decision, updating the status of an existing ADR, or reviewing the ADR log for consistency and completeness.
Skill: Architecture Decision Records
When Not to Use
When the decision is a minor implementation detail that does not constrain future work or require team alignment — routine choices belong in code comments or inline documentation, not ADRs
When the decision is already fully captured in an existing ADR — update the existing record rather than creating a duplicate
When the task is to research or evaluate options rather than record a conclusion — use the research skill first to gather evidence, then return to this skill once a decision is ready to document
Interaction Protocol
Before starting, ask if not already clear:
What is the decision being recorded, and what is its title?
What is the current status: Proposed, Accepted, Rejected, Superseded, or Deprecated?
What problem or opportunity drove this decision — what forces (technical, business, organisational) were at play?
What alternatives were considered, and why was each rejected?
Does this ADR supersede or relate to any existing ADR?
Output style:
Produce a complete ADR document in markdown with YAML front matter
Use precise, unambiguous language throughout — no weasel words, no vague attributions
State consequences honestly: include both positive and negative impacts in equal rigour
Use coded bullet identifiers (POS-001, NEG-001, ALT-001, IMP-001, REF-001) for multi-item sections to support machine parsing and cross-referencing
Do not omit sections or use placeholders — every section must contain substantive content
Inputs and Outputs
Input: A decision to document, with context about the forces at play, the chosen solution, and the alternatives considered Output: A complete ADR markdown file ready to commit to the project's ADR directory, with YAML front matter and all required sections Composability: Use research before this skill to gather evidence for the context and alternatives sections; use technical-writer after this skill if the ADR requires further prose editing for a broader audience; use swe when the decision involves architectural trade-offs that need grounding in SOLID, REST, or integration pattern principles
ADR Format
Every ADR must follow this structure exactly. Do not reorder, rename, or omit sections.
Front Matter
---title:"ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]"status:"Proposed"date:"YYYY-MM-DD"authors:"[Stakeholder Names or Roles]"tags: ["architecture", "decision"]
supersedes:""superseded_by:""---
Set status to Proposed for new ADRs unless the decision is already accepted
Set supersedes to the ADR number being replaced, or leave empty
Set superseded_by when this ADR is later replaced by another; update the original ADR at that time
1. Status
State the current lifecycle status on a single line:
State the problem, constraints, and forces that made this decision necessary.
Describe the situation as it existed before the decision
Identify the technical, business, and organisational forces at play
State any hard constraints that ruled out whole classes of solutions
Do not state the decision here — only the forces that drove it
3. Decision
State the chosen solution clearly and without ambiguity.
Open with a direct statement: "We will..." or "Adopt..."
Explain the key factors that made this option preferable over the alternatives
Do not repeat the context; assume the reader has read Section 2
4. Consequences
Document all significant outcomes of the decision.
Positive
POS-001: [Beneficial outcome or advantage]
POS-002: [Additional positive consequence]
Negative
NEG-001: [Trade-off, limitation, or drawback]
NEG-002: [Technical debt or risk introduced]
Include at least one item in each category. Use specific, concrete statements — "reduces query latency by eliminating a join" is acceptable; "improves performance" is not.
5. Alternatives Considered
Document every option that was evaluated and rejected.
[Alternative Name]
ALT-001: Description: [What this option is and how it would work]
ALT-002: Rejection Reason: [Why this option was not selected — specific, not generic]
Increment ALT codes sequentially across all alternatives. Document at least two alternatives, including the do-nothing option where applicable.
6. Implementation Notes
Provide actionable guidance for applying the decision.
IMP-001: [Key implementation step or constraint]
IMP-002: [Migration or rollout consideration, if applicable]
IMP-003: [Success criterion or observable outcome that confirms the decision has been applied correctly]
7. References
Link to related ADRs, standards, and external resources.
REF-001: [Related ADR — use relative path]
REF-002: [External standard, specification, or framework]
REF-003: [Research findings or evidence that informed the decision]
File Naming and Location
Naming Convention
NNNN-[title-slug].md
Where:
NNNN is a zero-padded four-digit sequence number (0001, 0002, …)
[title-slug] is the decision title in lowercase with spaces replaced by hyphens and special characters removed, kept to three to five words
Store all ADRs in a dedicated directory within the project. Confirm the project's ADR directory before creating a file; common locations are docs/adr/, decisions/, or architecture/decisions/. If no directory exists, propose creating one and confirm with the team.
Sequence Number
Check the existing ADR files to determine the next sequential number. Do not assume a number — verify it by inspecting the directory.
Maintaining Existing ADRs
When a decision is superseded or its status changes:
Update the status field in the original ADR's front matter
Set superseded_by to the number of the new ADR
In the new ADR, set supersedes to the number of the original
Do not delete or rewrite the original ADR — the historical record must be preserved
When an ADR contains an error in the context or alternatives sections, append a correction note rather than editing the original prose. Preserve the decision as it was understood at the time it was made.
Quality Checklist
Before finalising any ADR, verify all items:
ADR number is sequential and does not duplicate an existing number
File name follows the naming convention
Front matter is complete: title, status, date, authors, tags
Date is in YYYY-MM-DD format
Status is one of the five valid values
Context explains the forces without stating the decision
Decision is stated unambiguously in the opening sentence
At least one positive and one negative consequence are documented
At least two alternatives are documented with specific rejection reasons
Implementation notes provide at least one observable success criterion
All coded items follow the format (POS-001, NEG-001, ALT-001, IMP-001, REF-001)
No section is empty or contains a placeholder
Language is precise — no weasel words, no vague attributions, no passive constructions that hide the decision-maker
Related ADRs are cross-referenced in both directions
Failure Modes
Creating an ADR for a decision that has not yet been made — ADRs record decisions, not open questions; use a different format (RFC, proposal, spike) for options under evaluation
Stating consequences without specificity — "improves maintainability" is not a consequence; name what concretely changes
Documenting only positive consequences — every real decision involves trade-offs; if no negatives are listed, the record is incomplete
Listing alternatives that were never seriously considered — every alternative must have a genuine rejection reason
Editing the substance of a historical ADR rather than superseding it — this destroys the audit trail the format is designed to preserve
