adr-review

name	adr-review
description	Multi-agent debate orchestration for Architecture Decision Records. Automatically triggers on ADR create/edit/delete. Coordinates architect, critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, and high-level-advisor agents in structured debate rounds until consensus.
license	MIT
metadata	{"subagent_model":"claude-opus-4-5","domains":["architecture","governance","multi-agent","consensus"],"type":"orchestrator","inputs":["adr-file-path","change-type"],"outputs":["debate-log","updated-adr","recommendations"],"file_triggers":{"patterns":[".agents/architecture/ADR-*.md","docs/architecture/ADR-*.md"],"events":["create","update","delete"],"auto_invoke":true}}

ADR Review

Multi-agent debate pattern for rigorous ADR validation. Orchestrates 6 specialized agents through structured review rounds until consensus or 10 rounds maximum.

Quick Start

# Manual triggers:
/adr-review .agents/architecture/ADR-005-api-versioning.md
"review this ADR"
"validate ADR-005"

Automatic Detection: A Claude Code hook (Invoke-ADRChangeDetection.ps1) runs at session start and detects ADR changes, prompting you to invoke this skill. The pre-commit hook also detects staged ADR files and displays a reminder.

Input	Output	Consensus Required
ADR file path	Debate log + Updated ADR	6/6 Accept or D&C

File Triggers

Pattern	Location	Events
ADR-*.md	.agents/architecture/	create, update, delete
ADR-*.md	docs/architecture/	create, update, delete

Detection: .claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1

When to Use

MANDATORY Triggers (automatic):

• Architect creates or updates an ADR
• ANY agent modifies .agents/architecture/ADR-*.md

User-Initiated Triggers (manual):

• User requests ADR review ("review this ADR", "validate this decision")
• User requests multi-perspective validation for strategic decisions

Agent Roles

Agent	Focus	Tie-Breaker Role
architect	Structure, governance, coherence, ADR compliance	Structural questions
critic	Gaps, risks, alignment, completeness	None
independent-thinker	Challenge assumptions, surface contrarian views	None
security	Threat models, security trade-offs	None
analyst	Root cause, evidence, feasibility	None
high-level-advisor	Priority, resolve conflicts, break ties	Decision paralysis

Debate Protocol

Phase	Purpose	Details
Phase 0	Related work research	Search issues/PRs for context
Phase 1	Independent review	Each agent reviews ADR
Phase 2	Consolidation	Identify consensus and conflicts
Phase 3	Resolution	Propose updates for P0/P1 issues
Phase 4	Convergence check	Agents vote: Accept/D&C/Block

Consensus: All 6 agents Accept OR Disagree-and-Commit. Max 10 rounds.

See references/debate-protocol.md for full phase details.

Deletion Workflow

Phase	Purpose
D1	Detection - identify deleted ADR
D2	Impact assessment - find dependencies
D3	Archival decision - archive accepted ADRs
D4	Cleanup - update references

See references/deletion-workflow.md for full workflow.

Issue Resolution

Priority	Requirement	Gate
P0	Must resolve	BLOCKING
P1	Resolve OR defer with issue	BLOCKING
P2	Document	Non-blocking

See references/issue-resolution.md for deferral protocol.

Phase 4: Strategic Review (Principal-Level Validation)

After structural and technical review, apply strategic lenses:

Strategic Validation Checklist

Chesterton's Fence (Change Justification)

• If removing/changing existing patterns: Original purpose documented
• Investigation evidence provided (git archaeology, interviews, documentation)
• Confirmation original problem no longer exists
• Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Path Dependence (Irreversibility Recognition)

• Historical constraints identified and documented
• Reversibility assessment complete (rollback capability, vendor lock-in)
• Migration/exit strategy defined if adding dependencies
• Irreversible decisions explicitly flagged and justified
• Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Core vs Context (Investment Prioritization)

• Capability classified as Core (differentiating) or Context (commodity)
• If building Context: Justification for not buying/outsourcing
• If Core: Competitive differentiation explained
• Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Second-System Effect (Over-Engineering Detection)

• If replacing existing system: Scope boundaries explicit
• Feature list justified (not "everything we didn't do last time")
• Simplicity preservation strategy documented
• Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Strategic Review Verdict

Overall Strategic Assessment: [APPROVED | CONCERNS | REJECTED]

Blocking Issues:

• [Strategic issue 1 with required mitigation]
• [Strategic issue 2 with required mitigation]

Recommendations:

• [Strategic improvement 1]
• [Strategic improvement 2]

Scripts

Script	Purpose
Detect-ADRChanges.ps1	Detect ADR file changes for auto-trigger

# Basic detection
& .claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1

# Compare to specific commit
& .claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1 -SinceCommit "abc123"

Verification Checklist

After skill invocation:

• Debate log exists at .agents/critique/ADR-NNN-debate-log.md
• ADR status updated (proposed/accepted/needs-revision)
• All P0 issues addressed or documented
• Dissent captured for Disagree-and-Commit positions
• Recommendations provided to orchestrator

Anti-Patterns

Avoid	Why	Instead
Single-agent ADR review	Misses domain expertise	Use full 6-agent debate
Skipping Phase 0	Duplicates existing work	Always research first
Ignoring D&C dissent	Loses important context	Document all reservations
Manual ADR monitoring	Error-prone	Use Detect-ADRChanges.ps1
Deleting accepted ADRs without archive	Loses knowledge	Always archive accepted ADRs

References

Document	Content
debate-protocol.md	Full Phases 0-4 workflow
deletion-workflow.md	Phases D1-D4 workflow
issue-resolution.md	P0/P1/P2 handling and deferral
artifacts.md	Output formats and templates
agent-prompts.md	Detailed agent prompt templates