adr-writing

name

adr-writing

description

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

ADR Writing

Overview

Generate Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) following the MADR template with systematic completeness checking.

Quick Reference

┌─────────────┐     ┌──────────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│  SEQUENCE   │ ──▶ │   EXPLORE    │ ──▶ │    FILL     │
│  (get next  │     │  (context,   │     │  (template  │
│   number)   │     │   ADRs)      │     │   sections) │
└─────────────┘     └──────────────┘     └─────────────┘
       │                                        │
       │                                        ▼
       │                                 ┌─────────────┐
       │                                 │   VERIFY    │
       │                                 │  (DoD       │
       └─────────────────────────────────│   checklist)│
                                         └─────────────┘

When To Use

• Documenting architectural decisions from extracted requirements
• Converting meeting notes or discussions to formal ADRs
• Recording technical choices from PR discussions
• Creating decision records from design documents

Workflow

Gates (objective pass conditions)

Advance to the next step only when the pass condition holds. These replace “I explored” / “I verified” with checkable artifacts.

After	Pass condition
Step 2	Pass: You have a written list (bullets in draft preamble, scratch notes, or the ADR body) of ≥0 paths under docs/adrs/ you consulted for related/superseded ADRs, or you explicitly record that docs/adrs/ is missing or empty after checking. And you list ≥1 repo path for related code or N/A with one-line reason.
Step 5	Pass: For each E, C, A, D, R in references/definition-of-done.md, the draft either meets that letter’s checklist or contains an [INVESTIGATE: …] marker scoped to that gap.
Step 7	Pass: The ADR file exists at docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md, and a read of the file shows line 1 is --- and frontmatter parses as YAML.

Step 1: Get Sequence Number

If a number was pre-assigned (e.g., when called from /beagle:write-adr with parallel writes):

• Use the pre-assigned number directly
• Do NOT call the script - this prevents duplicate numbers in parallel execution

If no number was pre-assigned (standalone use):

python scripts/next_adr_number.py

This outputs the next available ADR number (e.g., 0003).

For parallel allocation (used by parent commands):

python scripts/next_adr_number.py --count 3
# Outputs: 0003, 0004, 0005 (one per line)

Step 2: Explore Context

Before writing, gather additional context:

1. Related code - Find implementations affected by this decision
2. Existing ADRs - Check docs/adrs/ for related or superseded decisions
3. Discussion sources - PRs, issues, or documents referenced in decision

Gate: Meet the Step 2 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) before Step 3.

Step 3: Load Template

Load references/madr-template.md for the official MADR structure.

Step 4: Fill Sections

Populate each section from your decision data:

Section	Source
Title	Decision summary (imperative mood)
Status	Always draft initially
Context	Problem statement, constraints
Decision Drivers	Prioritized requirements
Considered Options	All viable alternatives
Decision Outcome	Chosen option with rationale
Consequences	Good, bad, neutral impacts

Step 5: Apply Definition of Done

Load references/definition-of-done.md and verify E.C.A.D.R. criteria:

• Explicit problem statement
• Comprehensive options analysis
• Actionable decision
• Documented consequences
• Reviewable by stakeholders

Gate: Meet the Step 5 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) before Step 6 (use [INVESTIGATE: …] where data is missing).

Step 6: Mark Gaps

For sections that cannot be filled from available data, insert investigation prompts:

* [INVESTIGATE: Review PR #42 discussion for additional drivers]
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm with security team on compliance requirements]
* [INVESTIGATE: Benchmark performance of Option 2 vs Option 3]

These prompts signal incomplete sections for later follow-up.

Step 7: Write File

IMPORTANT: Every ADR MUST start with YAML frontmatter.

The frontmatter block is REQUIRED and must include at minimum:

---
status: draft
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

Full frontmatter template:

---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
consulted: []
informed: []
---

Validation: Before writing the file, verify the content starts with --- followed by valid YAML frontmatter. If frontmatter is missing, add it before writing.

Gate: After write, meet the Step 7 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) (file on disk, YAML frontmatter present).

Save to docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md:

docs/adrs/0003-use-postgresql-for-user-data.md
docs/adrs/0004-adopt-event-sourcing-pattern.md
docs/adrs/0005-migrate-to-kubernetes.md

Step 8: Verify Frontmatter

After writing, confirm the file:

1. Starts with --- on the first line
2. Contains status: draft (or other valid status)
3. Contains date: YYYY-MM-DD with actual date
4. Ends frontmatter with --- before the title

File Naming Convention

Format: NNNN-slugified-title.md

Component	Rule
NNNN	Zero-padded sequence number from script
-	Separator
slugified-title	Lowercase, hyphens, no special characters
.md	Markdown extension

Reference Files

• references/madr-template.md - Official MADR template structure
• references/definition-of-done.md - E.C.A.D.R. quality criteria

Output Example

---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
---

# Use PostgreSQL for User Data Storage

## Context and Problem Statement

We need a database for user account data...

## Decision Drivers

* Data integrity requirements
* Query flexibility needs
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm scaling projections with infrastructure team]

## Considered Options

* PostgreSQL
* MongoDB
* CockroachDB

## Decision Outcome

Chosen option: PostgreSQL, because...

## Consequences

### Good

* ACID compliance ensures data integrity

### Bad

* Requires more upfront schema design

### Neutral

* Team has moderate PostgreSQL experience