architecture-decision-recorder

name	architecture-decision-recorder
description	Create and maintain ADRs with context, decisions, alternatives, risks, security impact, compliance relation, and review points.
version	1.1.0
since	2026-06-17
last_modified	2026-06-17
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Architecture Decision Recorder

Purpose

Create and maintain ADRs with context, decision, alternatives, risks, security impact, compliance relation, and review points. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• architecture decision records decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects architecture decision records artifacts such as ADR, decision context, alternative analysis, risk section, security impact, review date.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as undocumented decision, missing alternative, unowned risk, security impact omission, compliance ambiguity, stale review point.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant architecture decision records artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as decision owner, status marker, linked issue, architecture diagram, control reference, review trigger.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: ADR, decision context, alternative analysis, risk section, security impact, review date.
• Risk themes: undocumented decision, missing alternative, unowned risk, security impact omission, compliance ambiguity, stale review point.