adr-capture
Skill5 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Catch an architectural or technical decision as it is being made and draft an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) in the team''s format, leaving explicit TODOs for fields the conversation did not cover. Never writes or commits without explicit confirmation. Use this when the user asks to "draft an ADR", "record this decision", "capture this as an ADR", AND proactively offer it when the conversation shows a commitment pattern — "we''ll go with X over Y because Z", "let''s standardize on...", "decided to...", "we''re choosing..." — paired with a rationale. Do NOT use for: exploratory discussion with no commitment ("we might try", "could consider", "what if we"), non-architectural decisions (scheduling, naming, trivial style), or generating product/requirements specs. When unsure whether a real decision was actually made, ask one question rather than draft.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AlpayC/claude-skill-settheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
- aman-bhandari/claude-code-agent-skills-frameworktheir own version, first seen Apr 18, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- AlpayC/claude-skill-set★ 0same name
- aman-bhandari/claude-code-agent-skills-framework★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- article-translatorSkill
- learning-modeSkill
- onboard-our-stackSkill
- rubber-duckSkill
- steelman-then-breakSkill
- toxic-senior-reviewerSkill
- my-skillSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 29
Config: Read optional .claude/adr/config.yaml for adr_dir (default docs/adr/), the id format, and the list of mandatory_sections — see …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
adr-capture
Decisions get lost because writing them down is friction. This skill catches the decision while it's warm and produces an ~80%-complete draft for review. It never auto-commits, and it biases toward false negatives — better to miss a decision and be asked than to spam the ADR log with drafts of things that were only floated.
Detecting a decision
A real decision has two parts: a commitment signal and a rationale.
- Commitment: "going with", "we'll use", "decided", "chose X over Y", "let's standardize on".
- Rationale: at least one because/why, even if implicit.
Exploratory phrasing — "might", "could", "what if", "worth considering" — is NOT a decision. If you see commitment without a clear rationale, or you're unsure, ask one question to confirm before drafting. Do not draft on ambiguity.
Drafting workflow
- Config. Read optional
.claude/adr/config.yamlforadr_dir(defaultdocs/adr/), the id format, and the list ofmandatory_sections— seereferences/config.example.yamlfor the schema. Otherwise use the defaults baked intoreferences/adr-template.md. - Next id. Scan
adr_dirfor the highest existing ADR number and increment. Slugify the decision title for the filename, e.g.0042-vector-store.md. - Fill from the conversation. Map what was said onto the template: context and forces, the decision, alternatives considered and why each was rejected, consequences (both + and −).
- Mark the gaps. For every mandatory section the conversation did not
cover, insert a literal
<TODO: ...>with a hint of what's needed. Never invent regulatory, security, data-classification, or rollback content — those must come from a human. - Review, then write. Show the full draft in chat first. Write the file
only after explicit confirmation, with
Status: Proposed. Never commit, and never set any status past Proposed on the user's behalf — that is a human approval step.
See references/adr-template.md for the section structure. The team declares
its mandatory sections in .claude/adr/config.yaml; with no config the
default is Rollback plan alone. Do not add heavier headings (regulatory
impact, data classification, security review) unless the team declared them —
an ADR full of TODOs nobody will fill teaches the team to ignore the section.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.