Architecture Decision Records

Expert guidance for creating and managing Architecture Decision Records based on Olaf Zimmermann’s research and the MADR (Markdown Architectural Decision Records) methodology.

How This Skill Works

When invoked, this skill guides you through the full ADR lifecycle:

1. Readiness assessment — Evaluate whether a decision is ready to be recorded (START criteria)
2. Creation — Write well-structured ADRs using the MADR template with anti-pattern avoidance
3. Quality evaluation — Check completeness using the ECADR “Definition of Done” criteria
4. Lifecycle management — Maintain ADR logs, supersede outdated records, track decision status

Core Philosophy

“Don’t decide too early, this harms flexibility. Don’t decide too late either.”

ADRs function as decision journals — not blueprints or policies. They capture the rationale behind architecturally significant choices: the problem context, the alternatives considered, the criteria applied, and the consequences accepted. Good ADRs are executive summaries that balance tradeoffs, not sales pitches for a predetermined outcome.

When to Use This Skill

• Creating a new ADR for an architectural decision
• Evaluating whether a decision is ready to be recorded
• Reviewing an existing ADR for completeness and quality
• Writing or customizing a MADR template for a project
• Assessing whether a requirement is architecturally significant
• Managing an ADR log (superseding, deprecating, linking decisions)
• Training teams on ADR best practices

Command Modes

The MADR Template (Quick Reference)

# ADR-NNNN: [Short Title Describing Decision]

## Status
[proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-XXXX]

## Date
YYYY-MM-DD

## Decision Makers
[Who made or approved this decision]

## Context and Problem Statement
[1-3 paragraphs: What is the issue? Why does it matter?
Frame as a question when possible.]

## Decision Drivers
- [Driver 1: quality attribute, business constraint, or technical concern]
- [Driver 2]
- [Driver 3]

## Considered Options
1. [Option A — the chosen option]
2. [Option B]
3. [Option C]

## Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "[Option A]", because [justification referencing decision drivers].

### Consequences
- Good, because [positive consequence]
- Good, because [another benefit]
- Bad, because [accepted tradeoff]
- Bad, because [known limitation]

## Pros and Cons of Options

### Option A
- Good, because [advantage]
- Bad, because [disadvantage]

### Option B
- Good, because [advantage]
- Bad, because [disadvantage]

### Option C
- Good, because [advantage]
- Bad, because [disadvantage]

## Validation
[How will we verify this decision works? Code review, design review,
architectural fitness function, spike, etc.]

## More Information
[Links to related ADRs, RFCs, spikes, or external references.
Note confidence level and planned review date.]

Key Frameworks

START — Definition of Ready

Before writing an ADR, confirm all five criteria:

• Stakeholders known and available
• Timing is the Most Responsible Moment
• Alternatives identified (minimum two)
• Requirements and context documented
• Template selected and instantiated

ECADR — Definition of Done

Before marking an ADR as accepted, confirm all five criteria:

• Evidence that the design will work
• Criteria applied to compare at least two alternatives
• Agreement from relevant stakeholders
• Documentation captured and shared
• Realization and review plan scheduled

ASR Test — Architectural Significance

A requirement warrants an ADR when it scores on these criteria:

• High business impact or risk
• Critical stakeholder concern
• Quality-of-service deviation from current architecture
• External dependency that is unpredictable or uncontrollable
• Cross-cutting concern affecting multiple components
• First-of-a-kind implementation for the team
• Historical precedent of causing problems

What This Skill Provides

1. Readiness assessment using START criteria with checklists
2. MADR template generation (full and minimal variants)
3. Anti-pattern detection in draft ADRs (11 known anti-patterns)
4. Quality evaluation using ECADR Definition of Done
5. Architectural significance assessment for prioritizing decisions
6. Lifecycle guidance for maintaining ADR logs over time