adr

name	adr
description	Creates and maintains Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following a structured format with State, Context, Decision, Considered, Consequences, Implementation, and References sections. Supports single-option decisions, multi-option decisions within one decision scope, multiple complementary decisions, and deferred decisions. Use when creating, updating, or reviewing architectural decisions, or when the user mentions ADR, architecture decisions, technical decisions, or design records.
metadata	{"version":"1.0.5","activation":{"implicit":true,"priority":1,"triggers":["adr","architecture decision","architectural decision","decision record","technical decision","design decision","create adr","write adr","add adr"],"match":{"languages":["markdown"],"paths":["docs/decisions/**/*.md","**/decisions/**/*.md","**/adr/**/*.md"],"prompt_regex":"(?i)(\\badr\\b|architecture decision|architectural decision|decision record|technical decision|design decision)"}},"usage":{"load_on_prompt":true,"autodispatch":true}}

Architecture Decision Records (ADR)

Instructions for AI agents on creating and maintaining Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) to document significant architectural and technical decisions within a project.

• 1. Benefits
• 2. Principles
  • 2.1. Characteristics
  • 2.2. Status Lifecycle
• 3. Structure
  • 3.1. State
  • 3.2. Context
  • 3.3. Decision
  • 3.4. Considered
  • 3.5. Consequences
  • 3.6. Implementation
  • 3.7. References
• 4. Workflow
• 5. Style Guide
• 6. Template
  • 6.1. ADR File Template
• 7. References

1. Benefits

• Traceability

  ADRs provide a historical record of architectural decisions, enabling teams to understand why specific choices were made, reducing the risk of revisiting resolved problems.

• Knowledge Sharing

  Documenting decisions and their rationale helps onboard new team members quickly and ensures shared understanding across the organization.

• Accountability

  Clearly identifying authors, dates, and decision status creates ownership and transparency around architectural choices.

• Informed Alternatives Review

  Recording considered alternatives with their pros and cons enables future reviewers to evaluate whether circumstances have changed enough to revisit a decision.

• Consequence Awareness

  Explicitly documenting positive and negative consequences of a decision helps teams prepare mitigations and set realistic expectations.

2. Principles

2.1. Characteristics

ADRs should embody the following characteristics to maximize their value.

• Atomic

  Each ADR addresses one clearly scoped decision concern. A single ADR may select one option or multiple complementary options from Considered, but it must not bundle unrelated decision concerns in one record.

• Immutable

  Once an ADR reaches Accepted status, its content should not be altered retroactively. Changes in direction require a new ADR that supersedes the old one.

• Concise

  ADRs should be as brief as the decision complexity allows. Use bullet points, tables, and structured sections rather than long prose.

• Linked

  Cross-reference related ADRs, issues, pull requests, and external resources to build a navigable decision graph.

2.2. Status Lifecycle

Each ADR moves through a defined set of statuses.

• Proposed

  The decision is under active discussion and has not yet been formally accepted.

• Accepted

  The decision has been reviewed and approved. Implementation may proceed.

• Rejected

  The proposal was reviewed but not accepted. The rationale for rejection must be documented in the Context or Consequences section.

• Deprecated

  The decision was once valid but is no longer applicable. A newer decision should be referenced.

• Superseded

  The decision has been replaced by a newer ADR. The superseding ADR number and link must be provided.

3. Structure

3.1. State

The State section captures administrative metadata for the ADR.

• Author(s)

  Initials or usernames of the individuals who authored the ADR.

• Date

  The date the ADR was created or last meaningfully updated (ISO 8601 format: YYYY-MM-DD).

• Status

  The current lifecycle status of the ADR (see Status Lifecycle).

3.2. Context

The Context section describes the circumstances that necessitated the decision.

• Background

  Explain the problem, requirement, or situation that needs to be addressed. Provide enough background for a reader unfamiliar with the project to understand why a decision was needed.

• Decision Drivers

  List the key criteria, constraints, and quality attributes that will guide the decision (e.g., performance, ease of use, maintainability, cost, compliance).

3.3. Decision

The Decision section records the decision outcome from the Considered options. The decision may take one of three forms:

• Single Selection

  One option from Considered is selected as the solution to the problem described in Context.

• Multiple Selection

  Multiple options from Considered are selected and may be complementary or interdependent, collectively forming the decision.

• Deferred

  No options from Considered are selected at this time. The decision is deferred until more information is available or conditions change.

For each selected option, create a subsection with the option name and explain the rationale for its selection, referencing the decision drivers from Context. For deferred decisions, document the reason for deferral and the next steps to resolve it.

3.4. Considered

The Considered section enumerates all options evaluated during the decision process. Each option may be selected (wholly or partially), combined with others, or rejected in the Decision section.

• Option Description

  Briefly describe each option, including a link to its official documentation or repository.

• Pros

  List the strengths of the option relative to the decision drivers.

• Cons

  List the weaknesses, limitations, or risks of the option.

3.5. Consequences

The Consequences section captures the impact of the decision once implemented.

• Positive Consequences

  Describe the expected benefits and improvements resulting from the decision.

• Negative Consequences

  Describe known trade-offs, technical debt, or limitations introduced by the decision.

• Risks

  Identify any residual risks or uncertainties that remain after the decision and outline planned mitigations.

3.6. Implementation

The Implementation section provides actionable guidance for applying the decision.

• Steps

  Enumerate the concrete steps required to implement the decision.

• Affected Areas

  Identify the repositories, modules, or systems impacted by the decision.

• Validation

  Describe how conformance with the decision will be verified (e.g., linting rules, CI checks, code review criteria).

3.7. References

The References section lists all external and internal resources cited in the ADR.

• Links

  Include links to official documentation, related ADRs, relevant issues, pull requests, and standards.

4. Workflow

1. Identify

   Identify a significant architectural or technical decision that needs to be made or documented (e.g., choice of framework, library, pattern, toolchain, or process).

2. Issue/Merge Request Creation

   Create an issue or merge request in the relevant repository to propose the ADR. Use a descriptive title that follows the canonical ADR title schema (see Style Guide).

3. Number and Name

   Assign the next sequential three-digit number and create a descriptive kebab-case file name derived from the canonical ADR title context following the convention:

   NNN-adr-<topic>[-<scope>].md
   

   Examples:

   • Title with scope

     An ADR on Dependency Manager for C/C++ would have the file name 015-adr-dependency-manager-c-cpp.md.

   • Title without scope

     An ADR on Git Hooks Manager would have the file name 016-adr-git-hooks-manager.md.

4. Place

   Create the ADR file in the designated decisions directory:

   docs/decisions/NNN-adr-<topic>[-<scope>].md
   

5. Draft

   Fill in all sections using the ADR File Template. Set the status to Proposed.

6. Review

   Submit the ADR for peer review via a pull request. Address feedback and update the content as needed.

7. Accept or Reject

   Update the status to Accepted or Rejected once a decision is reached. Document the rationale for rejection if applicable.

8. Supersede

   When a decision changes, create a new ADR and set its status to Accepted. Update the old ADR's status to Superseded and add a link to the new ADR.

5. Style Guide

• Issue/Merge Request (MR) Title Refinement

  When drafting or reviewing an issue or merge request that introduces or updates an ADR, refine the issue/MR title to match the canonical ADR title schema ADR on <Topic> [for <Scope>]. Prefer consistency between issue title, merge request title, and ADR H1 title.

  • <Topic>

    Should be a concise, specific technical concern, tool, or practice.

  • <Scope>

    Optional. Include for <Scope> only when it meaningfully narrows the decision applicability.

• File Naming

  Use the pattern NNN-adr-<topic>[-<scope>].md with lowercase kebab-case for the title segment. The prefix NNN is a zero-padded three-digit sequence number (e.g., 001, 012). The -<scope> segment is optional and must be omitted when scope is not present (do not leave a trailing dash). Derive the slug from the canonical ADR title.

• Heading Levels

  Use H1 (#) for the ADR title, H2 (##) for top-level sections (State, Context, Decision, Considered, etc.), and H3 (###) for subsections (individual options or decisions under Decision or options under Considered). Support multiple decisions by using multiple H3 subsections under Decision (e.g., 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) when applicable.

• Decision Drivers

  Group decision drivers under a single numbered list item (1. Decision Drivers). List each driver as a bullet (-) with a blockquote (>) providing a one-sentence description.

• Alternatives

  Each considered option should be an H3 subsection using the option's proper name. Use - Pros / - Cons with nested blockquote descriptions for each point. Not all considered options must be selected in the Decision section; some may be documented here as rejected or deferred.

• Status Field

  Always include exactly one of the defined statuses: Proposed, Accepted, Rejected, Deprecated, or Superseded.

• Superseded Link

  When status is Superseded, append a link to the superseding ADR in the State section:

  - Superseded by: [NNN-adr-new-title](NNN-adr-new-title.md)
  

• Language

  Write in clear, formal English. Use present tense for the Decision section and past tense only when describing historical context.

• TOC

  Include a Markdown table of contents with anchor links at the top of each ADR.

6. Template

Use this template for new ADRs. Replace all <placeholder> values with actual content.

6.1. ADR File Template

# NNN-ADR: <Topic> [for <Scope>]

Architectural Decision Records (ADR) on <brief one-sentence description of the decision topic>.

- [1. State](#1-state)
- [2. Context](#2-context)
- [3. Decision](#3-decision)
  - [3.1. <Option or Decision Name 1>](#31-<option-or-decision-anchor>)
  - [3.2. <Option or Decision Name 2>](#32-<option-or-decision-anchor>)
- [4. Considered](#4-considered)
  - [4.1. <Option 1 Name>](#41-<option-1-anchor>)
  - [4.2. <Option 2 Name>](#42-<option-2-anchor>)
- [5. Consequences](#5-consequences)
- [6. Implementation](#6-implementation)
- [7. References](#7-references)

## 1. State

- Author(s): <initials or username>
- Date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Status: Proposed

## 2. Context

<Describe the problem, requirement, or situation that motivated this decision. Provide enough background for someone unfamiliar with the project to understand why a decision was needed.>

1. Decision Drivers

    - <Driver 1>
      > <One-sentence description of the criterion.>

    - <Driver 2>
      > <One-sentence description of the criterion.>

    - <Driver 3>
      > <One-sentence description of the criterion.>

## 3. Decision

### 3.1. <Option Name 1>

<Brief explanation of why this option was selected or how it contributes to the overall decision. Reference the decision drivers.>

1. Rationale

    - <Driver 1>
      > <How this option satisfies this driver.>

    - <Driver 2>
      > <How this option satisfies this driver.>

### 3.2. <Option Name 2>

<If multiple options are selected, include additional subsections for each chosen option. If no options are selected, document the deferral reason and next steps.>

1. Rationale

    - <Driver 1>
      > <How this option satisfies this driver.>

    - <Driver 2>
      > <How this option satisfies this driver.>

## 4. Considered

### 4.1. <Option 1 Name>

[<Option 1 Name>](<link-to-official-docs-or-repo>) <brief one-sentence description>.

- Pros

  - <Strength 1>
    > <Description.>

  - <Strength 2>
    > <Description.>

- Cons

  - <Weakness 1>
    > <Description.>

  - <Weakness 2>
    > <Description.>

### 4.2. <Option 2 Name>

[<Option 2 Name>](<link-to-official-docs-or-repo>) <brief one-sentence description>.

- Pros

  - <Strength 1>
    > <Description.>

- Cons

  - <Weakness 1>
    > <Description.>

## 5. Consequences

- Positive

  - <Positive 1>
    > <Expected benefits and improvements.>

  - <Positive 2>
    > <Expected benefits and improvements.>

- Negative

  - <Negative 1>
    > <Known trade-offs, technical debt, or limitations introduced.>

  - <Negative 2>
    > <Known trade-offs, technical debt, or limitations introduced.>

- Risks

  - <Risk 1>
    > <Residual risks and planned mitigations.>

  - <Risk 2>
    > <Residual risks and planned mitigations.>

## 6. Implementation

1. <Step 1>

    <Describe the first implementation action.>

2. <Step 2>

    <Describe the next implementation action.>

3. <Step 3>

    <Describe validation or verification.>

## 7. References

- <Reference 1> [title](<url>) page/repo/article.
- <Reference 2> [title](<url>) page/repo/article.

7. References

• Architecture Decision Records overview page.
• Michael Nygard's original ADR proposal article.
• MADR (Markdown Architectural Decision Records) specification page.
• ADR GitHub organization page.