adr

name	adr
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "write an ADR", "create an ADR", "document an architecture decision", "write an Architecture Decision Record", "document a technology choice", "compare database options", "document why we chose X over Y", or needs to record a specific architectural or technology decision with alternatives and trade-offs (1-3 pages). Use when capturing a decision that needs to be justified and preserved for future reference.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"irfansofyana","version":"2.0.0","last-updated":"2026-03-18"}
allowed-tools	AskUserQuestion Bash Read

ADR Skill

Create Architecture Decision Records (1-3 pages) that document specific technology choices, architectural decisions, or framework selections — capturing the decision, alternatives considered, evaluation criteria, and trade-offs for future reference.

Key principle: All information comes from the user. The Read tool is only for reading user-provided context files (existing ADRs, RFCs, tickets) that the user explicitly shares.

When to Use an ADR

• Choosing between competing technologies (PostgreSQL vs MongoDB, Kafka vs RabbitMQ)
• Making a significant architectural pivot or framework decision
• Documenting a decision that will be hard to reverse
• Preserving the rationale behind a past decision for future team members
• Any "why did we choose X?" question that deserves a permanent answer

Workflow

Phase 1: Gather Context

Parse what the user already provided. Extract:

• The decision: What was decided or needs to be decided?
• Context: What situation forced this decision?
• Alternatives: What options were in consideration?

Only ask for what's genuinely missing.

Essential questions (use references/question-bank.md patterns, ask only if not already provided):

1. Decision: "What is the specific decision being made or documented?"
2. Context/drivers: "What situation or requirements led to this decision? What constraints apply?"
3. Alternatives (MANDATORY minimum 2): "What other options did you consider? Walk me through each one."
4. Decision criteria: "How did you evaluate the options? What mattered most — performance, cost, team familiarity, vendor support?"
5. Trade-offs: "What are you gaining with this choice? What are you giving up?"
6. Consequences: "What changes because of this decision? Any downstream implications?"
7. Reconsideration triggers (optional): "Under what circumstances should this decision be revisited?"
8. Related context (optional): "Any previous ADRs or RFCs this relates to?"

If user is still deciding (not yet made the decision): Offer research via agent:web-research-specialist to gather comparison data before writing.

Rich context (accept at any point):

• Existing ADRs → use Read tool to load for consistency
• Benchmark data or vendor docs → incorporate key findings
• Pasted comparisons → extract decision criteria

Phase 2: Generate & Iterate

Once sufficient context is gathered, generate the complete ADR draft using the template from assets/templates/template.md.

Content generation rules:

• Use section headings from template.md exactly
• The Alternatives Considered section requires at least 2 alternatives — never skip this
• Use a comparison table for decision criteria evaluation
• Write trade-offs honestly — acknowledge weaknesses of the chosen option
• State the decision in clear, unambiguous language ("We will use PostgreSQL for all transactional data storage")
• Do NOT include checkboxes, HTML comments, guidance questions, or quality criteria in output

After presenting the full draft:

1. Internally validate against assets/templates/quality-checklist.md — never show to user
2. Check that alternatives section has sufficient depth and honest trade-offs
3. Iterate based on feedback
4. Save in requested format

Document Structure

Key sections (from assets/templates/template.md):

Section	Purpose
Title & Metadata	Decision ID, date, status, authors
Context	Current situation, drivers, goals, non-goals
Decision	Clear statement of what was decided
Alternatives Considered	MANDATORY 2+ alternatives with pros/cons
Decision Criteria	Evaluation table or criteria breakdown
Trade-offs Analysis	What we gain, what we give up
Consequences	Positive, negative, and risk consequences
Implementation Plan	How the decision is being carried out
Validation	POC results, benchmarks, evidence
Related Decisions	Links to other ADRs
Reconsideration	Triggers and expiration conditions
References	External docs, benchmarks, comparisons
Approval	Sign-off section

Quality Principles

• Alternatives are mandatory — an ADR with only one option considered is not credible
• The decision statement must be unambiguous — future readers should have no doubt what was decided
• Trade-offs must be honest — acknowledge real weaknesses of the chosen approach
• Include the decision criteria explicitly — future readers need to understand what values drove the choice
• "Do nothing" / "status quo" is always a valid alternative to include

Visual Aids

Comparison diagrams or architecture context diagrams can strengthen ADRs. When requested:

1. Ask what the diagram should show
2. Invoke common-engineering:mermaid skill
3. Integrate into relevant section

Integration Points

Capability	When to Use
agent:web-research-specialist	Compare technologies, gather benchmark data, research options
common-engineering:mermaid	Architecture context or comparison diagrams
document-skills:docx	Export to Word format
document-skills:pdf	Export to PDF format

Reference Files

File	Purpose
references/writing-guidelines.md	Technical writing best practices
references/question-bank.md	AskUserQuestion patterns for this skill
assets/templates/template.md	Document structure (use for output)
assets/templates/guidance.md	Section-by-section guidance (read, never copy to output)
assets/templates/quality-checklist.md	Internal validation (never show to user)
assets/templates/examples.md	Completed examples for quality reference