adr-quality

name	adr-quality
description	This skill should be used when the user asks about "ADR quality", "review ADR", "ADR checklist", "improve ADR", "ADR validation", "good ADR examples", or needs guidance on evaluating, improving, and maintaining high-quality architectural decision records.

ADR Quality

This skill provides guidance on creating, evaluating, and maintaining high-quality Architectural Decision Records. Quality ADRs are clear, complete, and useful for future readers.

Quality Criteria

The 5 C's of ADR Quality

Criterion	Definition	Questions to Ask
Clear	Easy to understand	Can a new team member understand this?
Complete	All relevant information	Are all sections filled out meaningfully?
Concise	No unnecessary content	Is every sentence adding value?
Contextual	Sufficient background	Is the "why" clear?
Current	Reflects actual state	Is the status accurate? Are links valid?

Essential Quality Checks

Title Quality

Good titles are:

• Specific and searchable
• Action-oriented (verb + noun)
• Not too broad or too narrow

Quality	Example
Good	"Use PostgreSQL for primary data storage"
Good	"Adopt event-driven architecture for order processing"
Bad	"Database"
Bad	"Technical decision about which database to use for storing user data"

Context Quality

Context should answer:

• What problem are we solving?
• What is the current state?
• What constraints exist?
• Who are the stakeholders?

Good context example:

Our e-commerce platform needs to handle user authentication across
mobile and web applications. Currently, authentication is handled
separately in each app, leading to inconsistent security and duplicate
code. We have 50,000 active users and expect 10x growth in 2 years.
The team has experience with OAuth but not SAML.

Decision Drivers Quality

Drivers should be:

• Specific (not "performance" but "sub-100ms response time")
• Prioritized or weighted
• Traceable to stakeholder needs
• Testable or measurable

Options Quality

Each option should have:

• Clear description
• Genuine consideration (not straw man)
• Fair pros and cons analysis
• Sufficient detail for comparison

Decision Quality

The decision should:

• State the choice clearly
• Connect to decision drivers
• Explain why other options were rejected
• Be actionable

Consequences Quality

Consequences should include:

• Both positive and negative outcomes
• Accepted trade-offs
• Risks and mitigations
• Future implications

Quality Anti-Patterns

Common Problems to Avoid

Anti-Pattern	Description	Fix
Thin Context	Just problem statement, no background	Add current state, constraints, stakeholders
Missing Trade-offs	Only benefits listed	Document negatives of chosen option
Straw Man Options	Options included just to reject	Only include seriously considered alternatives
Vague Drivers	Generic terms like "performance"	Add specific, measurable criteria
Orphan ADRs	No links to related decisions	Add supersedes/relates-to links
Stale Status	Status doesn't reflect reality	Update status when state changes
Hindsight Bias	Written long after decision	Create ADRs during decision process

Red Flags in ADR Review

• Only one option considered
• No cons listed for chosen option
• Context is single sentence
• Decision drivers are vague
• No stakeholders mentioned
• Status hasn't been updated in months
• Superseded ADRs not updated

Quality Review Process

Self-Review Checklist

Before submitting an ADR:

Completeness

• All sections have meaningful content
• No placeholder text remaining
• Links and references work
• Related ADRs linked

Clarity

• Readable by someone not involved in decision
• Acronyms defined
• Technical terms explained
• Structure aids understanding

Accuracy

• Facts are verifiable
• Options fairly presented
• Trade-offs honestly stated
• Status reflects actual state

Peer Review Guidelines

When reviewing ADRs:

1. Read for understanding first - Can you understand the decision without extra context?
2. Check decision drivers - Are they complete and prioritized?
3. Evaluate options - Were alternatives seriously considered?
4. Assess consequences - Are trade-offs clearly stated?
5. Consider future readers - Will this make sense in 6 months?

Review Questions

Ask these during review:

• "What problem does this solve?"
• "Why was this option chosen over alternatives?"
• "What trade-offs are we accepting?"
• "When should this decision be revisited?"

Writing Quality Guidelines

Language and Tone

• Use active voice
• Be specific, not vague
• Avoid unnecessary jargon
• Write for future readers

Good: "We chose PostgreSQL for its strong JSON support" Bad: "The database was selected based on various factors"

Structure and Formatting

• Use consistent heading levels
• Include tables for comparisons
• Use bullet points for lists
• Keep paragraphs focused

Length Guidelines

Section	Recommended Length
Title	5-15 words
Context	100-300 words
Decision Drivers	3-8 items
Options	2-5 options, 50-150 words each
Decision	50-150 words
Consequences	100-300 words

Maintaining Quality Over Time

Regular Audits

Periodically review ADRs for:

• Outdated information
• Incorrect status
• Broken links
• Missing relationships
• Decisions that should be revisited

Status Hygiene

Keep status current:

• Update to deprecated when appropriate
• Link superseding ADRs
• Remove or archive truly obsolete ADRs

Documentation Integration

Ensure ADRs connect to:

• Architecture documentation
• README files
• Code comments where relevant
• Onboarding materials

Quality Metrics

ADR Health Indicators

Metric	Good	Concerning	Critical
Sections completed	>90%	70-90%	<70%
Options considered	2-5	1 or >5	0
Consequences documented	Both +/-	Only +	None
Status currency	Updated monthly	Quarterly	>6 months
Links working	100%	>90%	<90%

Additional Resources

Related Skills

• adr-fundamentals - ADR basics and lifecycle
• adr-decision-drivers - Identifying and documenting drivers
• adr-compliance - Auditing code compliance with ADRs
• adr-format-madr - MADR format specifics for quality templates