Find implicit adrs

Find implicit ADRs (DOC-164 slice 8+)

Run the adr-archaeologist reducer to surface the architectural decisions ODD's codebase embodies but that aren't yet written down in adrs/ AND, critically, to separate them from implementation gaps that the substrate also surfaces. The reducer reads every per-node sidecar's implicit_adrs + bugs_limitations_corner_cases blocks + concepts.yaml's security/performance aggregates, applies the 3-question wisdom test to each candidate (per Nygard 2011 / adr.github.io / AWS Prescriptive Guidance) to determine whether it qualifies as an ADR (deliberate architectural decision with rationale + structural impact) or as a refactoring scope (gap-shaped finding that doesn't belong in the ADR catalog), and produces two artefacts ranked + classified accordingly.

The 3-question wisdom test (see .claude/agents/adr-archaeologist.md Rule 0 for full text):

1. Is the absence (or pattern) intentional, with a stated rationale?
2. Does it have structural impact, or is it a missing feature within an existing structure?
3. Would adding the absent thing be refactoring or a structural change?

If 2 of 3 questions lean "gap" → refactoring-scopes.md. Otherwise → implicit-adrs.md.

Why this matters (case-law): slice 8's first run promoted "GenAI requests not authenticated" as ADR-005. The maintainer reviewed: that's not an architectural decision — that's a limited/buggy implementation. Polluting the ADR catalog with gap-shaped findings burns trust in the catalog as a decision log. Refactoring scopes are valuable but they have their own home. See ~/.claude/projects/.../memory/feedback_adr_vs_refactoring_scope.md for the rule.

This is the third reducer in the agentic-code-ontology layer (per adrs/drafts/agentic-code-ontology.md rev 2). The first per-node enrichment slice was /enrich. The first reducer was /concepts. The second reducer was /doc-gap-check. /find-implicit-adrs (slice 8) consumes the same sidecars + concepts.yaml + the existing ADR set.

Argument forms

Form	Behaviour
/find-implicit-adrs [<repo>]	Default. Run adr-archaeologist in incremental mode (per playbooks/reducer-incremental-mode.md) against the sidecar set + adrs/. Refreshes lineage/{repo}/implicit-adrs.md AND lineage/{repo}/refactoring-scopes.md by appending+annotating only the sidecars whose node_id is not yet in the prior artefacts' processed_node_ids.
/find-implicit-adrs --full [<repo>]	Forces FULL mode — re-reads every sidecar and regenerates both artefacts from scratch. Use when prior artefacts are corrupt, prompt_version bumped, or after a wisdom-test re-calibration.
/find-implicit-adrs --show [<repo>]	Read-only. Print the existing report's summary (counts per category + severity, top-5 candidates).
/find-implicit-adrs --diff [<repo>]	Read-only. Compare existing report to a fresh run; surface the diff.

Incremental input resolution

Before spawning the subagent in default (incremental) mode, the skill computes:

• PROCESSED_NODE_IDS — UNION of the processed_node_ids: frontmatter from BOTH implicit-adrs.md AND refactoring-scopes.md. If either field is missing, fall back to --full.
• NEW_SIDECAR_FILES — sidecars whose node_id is not in PROCESSED_NODE_IDS. Empty set → exit.
• PRIOR_HEAD_ADRS — one line per existing ADR candidate from implicit-adrs.md, derived via grep -E '^## ADR-CANDIDATE-' + severity tag. Compact-head shape per the playbook.
• PRIOR_HEAD_SCOPES — one line per existing refactoring scope from refactoring-scopes.md, derived via grep -E '^### REFACTOR-' + severity + category tags.
• CURATED_ENTRIES — verbatim Markdown of every entry flagged maintainer_curated: true across both artefacts.
• NEXT_AVAILABLE_ID — max existing ADR-CANDIDATE-NNN + 1; max existing REFACTOR-NNN + 1.

These get passed to the subagent in place of the legacy "full prior artefact" block.

Prerequisites

• lineage/{repo}/understanding/{slug}.md sidecars exist (i.e. /enrich has been run).
• adrs/ directory exists (drafts + accepted ADRs).
• concepts.yaml exists (recommended — the reducer cross-references concept-level patterns).

Protocol

1. Orient

Read these (skip if loaded this session):

• CLAUDE.md — quality bar
• adrs/drafts/agentic-code-ontology.md — the layered ADR + reducer pattern
• .claude/agents/adr-archaeologist.md — the subagent's system prompt

2. Resolve inputs

• Sidecar set: Glob lineage/{repo}/understanding/*.md. Confirm at least one exists; otherwise report "no sidecars — run /enrich first" and exit.
• Existing ADRs: Glob adrs/**/*.md. Build an index of titles + Decision-section headlines.
• Existing implicit-adrs.md: capture maintainer-curated entries (preserve verbatim).
• Substrate state: last_scan_commit from manifest.yaml.

3. Spawn the adr-archaeologist subagent

Invoke via Agent tool with subagent_type: adr-archaeologist. Construct the prompt:

REPO: <repo>
WORKSPACE_ROOT_ABS: <absolute>
SIDECAR_DIR_ABS: /home/.../lineage/{repo}/understanding/
CONCEPTS_YAML_PATH: /home/.../lineage/{repo}/concepts.yaml
EXISTING_ADRS_DIR_ABS: /home/.../adrs/
EXISTING_IMPLICIT_ADRS: <verbatim or "(none)">
EXISTING_REFACTORING_SCOPES: <verbatim or "(none)">
SUBSTRATE_LAST_SCAN_COMMIT: <from manifest.yaml>
TARGET_ADR_PATH: lineage/{repo}/implicit-adrs.md
TARGET_SCOPES_PATH: lineage/{repo}/refactoring-scopes.md
SIDECAR_COUNT: <N>

The subagent's tool surface per its frontmatter: Read, Glob, Grep, Write. It writes BOTH files and replies with Wrote ADRs: ... + Wrote scopes: ... + Summary: ....

4. Validate

After completion:

• Confirm BOTH lineage/{repo}/implicit-adrs.md AND lineage/{repo}/refactoring-scopes.md exist.
• Parse YAML frontmatter on each.
• Verify each ADR candidate has category, support_count, surfaced_by, decision_statement, evidence, proposed_action, severity.
• Verify each refactoring scope has category, surfaced_by, statement, evidence, proposed_remedy, severity, suggested_backlog_grouping.
• Spot-check 3-5 ADR candidates against the wisdom test: read the candidate's evidence; mentally apply the 3 questions; if 2 of 3 lean "gap," the candidate is misclassified — flag for review and ask the subagent to reclassify (or surface to maintainer for verdict).
• Spot-check 3-5 refactoring scopes: do they cite real sidecar lines? Is the proposed_remedy actionable?
• Verify NO candidate appears in both files.

5. Report

• Report paths (both files)
• ADR counts: <P> promote / <E> extend-existing / <D> drift / <U> unique-load-bearing = <Na> total ADR candidates (<H> HIGH, <M> MEDIUM, <L> LOW)
• Refactoring scope counts: <Ns> total scopes (<C> CRITICAL, <H> HIGH, <M> MEDIUM, <L> LOW); <K> candidates failed the wisdom test and were reclassified from ADR to scope
• Top-5 HIGH ADR candidates + Top-5 CRITICAL refactoring scopes (one-liners)
• Drift count (drift ADRs warrant immediate attention — code/ADR disagreement)
• Cross-references between files (where a refactoring scope deviates from a co-surfaced ADR)
• Suggested next: maintainer triages ADR candidates into adrs/drafts/ AND triages refactoring scopes into backlog items (DOC-NNN / TEST-NNN / SEC-NNN / PERF-NNN) or sprint groupings ("GenAI hardening sprint", "Authorization audit batch", etc.).

Rules

• Cross-reference, don't duplicate. Every candidate is checked against adrs/. A promote candidate must NOT match an existing ADR's title or decision-statement.
• Severity is anchored. HIGH = load-bearing decision; MEDIUM = pattern-shaping; LOW = stylistic. Don't inflate.
• Drift findings get extra scrutiny. A drift finding (existing ADR vs current code disagreement) requires citation of both the ADR section AND the contradicting sidecars. The skill rejects drift findings with thin evidence.
• Single-sidecar load-bearing decisions are valid. Recurrence is a signal, not a requirement. AlertManager's "operator-delegated network auth" is HIGH-severity even from one sidecar.
• Maintainer-curated preservation. maintainer_curated: true entries survive verbatim across refreshes.

Cross-references

• Subagent: .claude/agents/adr-archaeologist.md
• Inputs: lineage/{repo}/understanding/*.md + adrs/**/*.md
• Output: lineage/{repo}/implicit-adrs.md
• ADR: adrs/drafts/agentic-code-ontology.md rev 2 (slice 8 in slice progression)