Adr

Architecture Decision Record (ADR) — MADR format

Capture a significant architectural/technical decision as a durable, structured record in MADR 4.0 format (Markdown Any Decision Records), stored in version control next to the code so future readers understand why, not just what.

Sources / further reading:

• MADR: https://adr.github.io/madr/ · https://github.com/adr/madr
• Format gallery (Nygard, MADR, etc.): https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/architecture-decision-record
• Nygard's original: https://www.cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions

When to write one

ADR-worthy = significant and hard to reverse: technology/framework/database choice, API or integration style, data model, architectural pattern (monolith vs services, sync vs event-driven), security approach, or a notable trade-off. Skip trivial, easily-reversed choices.

Choosing minimal vs full

• Minimal (default): smaller/medium decisions — Context & Problem, Considered Options, Decision Outcome (+ Consequences).
• Full: weighty decisions with several real alternatives — adds Decision Drivers, per-option Pros and Cons, Confirmation, and More Information.
• Honor --full/--minimal if given; otherwise pick by decision weight.

Procedure

1. Locate/initialize the store. Use docs/adr/. If it doesn't exist, create it and a docs/adr/README.md index. If the repo already has an ADR location or template, follow that instead. Optionally seed the meta-ADR 0001-record-architecture-decisions.md (records the decision to use ADRs).
2. Assign the next number. Scan docs/adr/ for the highest NNNN, increment; 4-digit zero-padded starting at 0001.
3. Gather context. From the conversation/code extract: the problem and why now, decision drivers/forces, the alternatives considered, the chosen option, and consequences (good and bad). Ask the user only for what you can't infer — especially alternatives rejected and why, the most valuable part.
4. Write docs/adr/NNNN-kebab-case-title.md using the matching template below. When the decision involves architecture or flow, embed a mermaid diagram (component graph/flowchart and/or sequenceDiagram) in Context and Problem Statement and/or per option — ADRs live as files / on GitHub, so mermaid renders. Skip it for non-structural decisions.
5. Update the index docs/adr/README.md with a row: number, title (link), status, date.
6. Report the path and a one-line summary. Don't commit unless asked.

MADR — minimal template

---
status: "proposed"
date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
decision-makers: {who decided}
---

# {short title of the decision}

## Context and Problem Statement

{2–3 sentences, or a short story; optionally phrased as a question. Link issues/
boards if relevant.}

<!-- Optional, when the decision is structural — delete if not applicable -->
## Architecture / Flow

```mermaid
graph TD
  A[Component A] --> B[Component B]

Considered Options

• {option 1}
• {option 2}
• {option 3}

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "{option 1}", because {justification — resolves the key driver / best trade-off / only viable option}.

Consequences

• Good, because {positive consequence}
• Bad, because {negative consequence / new cost or risk}

## MADR — full template
```markdown
---
status: "proposed | rejected | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN"
date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
decision-makers: {who decided}
consulted: {subject-matter experts consulted (two-way)}
informed: {kept up to date (one-way)}
---

# {short title of the decision}

## Context and Problem Statement

{2–3 sentences or a short story; optionally a question. Link issues/boards.}

<!-- Optional, when the decision is structural — delete if not applicable -->
## Architecture / Flow

```mermaid
graph TD
  A[Component A] --> B[Component B]

Decision Drivers

• {driver 1 — a force or concern}
• {driver 2 — a force or concern}

Considered Options

• {option 1}
• {option 2}
• {option 3}

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "{option 1}", because {justification}.

Consequences

• Good, because {positive consequence}
• Bad, because {negative consequence}

Confirmation

{How compliance with this decision will be confirmed — e.g. design/code review, or an ArchUnit/fitness-function test.}

Pros and Cons of the Options

{option 1}

• Good, because {argument}
• Neutral, because {argument}
• Bad, because {argument}

{option 2}

• Good, because {argument}
• Bad, because {argument}

More Information

{Additional evidence, team agreement, when to revisit, links to related ADRs.}

## Lifecycle & superseding
- Status flow: `proposed → accepted → deprecated | superseded` (use `rejected`
  for an option/decision not taken).
- ADRs are immutable once **accepted**. To change a decision, write a **new** ADR,
  set the old one's status to `superseded by ADR-NNNN`, and cross-link both ways
  (new → what it supersedes; old → its replacement). Never silently edit an
  accepted decision's substance.

## Optional external tooling (not required)
The skill writes the markdown directly, so a CLI is usually redundant. If you
outgrow it: `npryce/adr-tools` codified the numbering/superseding conventions
(but is stale, last release 2018 — cite, don't depend); `thomvaill/log4brains`
can publish ADRs as a browsable website.