adr
Skill40 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create and manage Architecture Decision Records. Documents significant technical decisions with context, alternatives, and consequences. Also supports evaluate (assess proposals) and design (system design) modes.
90 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- GustavoAlecio/claude-setuptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- computerlovetech/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- rvdbreemen/OTGW-firmwaretheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- axodouble/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- RodrigoAnciaes/golem-sddtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- n1kben/agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use fdr, runbook and 8 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
thiagofgfSkillfdr
Use when creating, changing, reviewing, retiring, auditing, or backfilling implemented user-visible feature behavior, permissions, feature-specific rationale, tradeoffs, or relationships to architectural decisions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillrunbook
Create or update an operational runbook for a recurring task or procedure. Use when documenting a task that on-call or ops needs to run repeatably, turning tribal knowledge into exact step-by-step commands, adding troubleshooting and rollback steps to an existing procedure, or writing escalation paths for when things go wrong.
Also in 5 projects that use this
drewdrewthisSkillsweep
Search for similar patterns, anti-patterns, or issues elsewhere in the codebase after a fix or feature. Use after implementing a fix to catch the same bug in other places, or proactively to audit for a known pattern.
Also in 4 projects that use this
vndeeSkillproduct-spec
Use when starting a new feature, product, or project — before any architecture or code, to define what to build and why
Also in 3 projects that use this
OpenAISkillthreat-model
Use when Codex is already in the threat-modeling phase of a security scan, the user explicitly invokes $threat-model, or the user explicitly asks to create, update, or persist a repository threat model. Do not use as the primary trigger for full PR, commit, branch, patch, or repository scans.
Also in 6 projects that use this
montymiSkilltech-spec
Parse and review Technical Specification documents for completeness, consistency, and implementation readiness
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions90 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- tslateman/skills★ 110% same
Wrote their own version · 89
- CrowdDotDev/crowd.dev★ 3.4ksame name
- chattocorp/chatto★ 2.9ksame name
- Cosmian/kms★ 372same name
- linuxfoundation/insights★ 288same name
- rvdbreemen/OTGW-firmware★ 213same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- irahardianto/awesome-agv★ 157same name
- jellydn/my-ai-tools★ 127same name
- EmeaAppGbb/spec2cloud★ 100same name
79 more not listed
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 repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- web/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- web/llms.txtllms.txt
- assist-reviewSkill
- bughuntSkill
- changeSkill
- coverageSkill
- debugSkill
- decomposeSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- deploy-checklistSkill
- discoverSkill
- docsSkill
- documentationSkill
- draftSkill
- graphSkill
- impactSkill
- implementSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- initSkill
- integrationsSkill
- jiraSkill
- learnSkill
- new-trackSkill
- opsSkill
- planSkill
- quick-reviewSkill
- revertSkill
- reviewSkill
- standupSkill
- statusSkill
- tech-debtSkill
- testing-strategySkill
- tourSkill
- uploadSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
28 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 15 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 75 edited versions we read keep these.
13
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
15
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
Not checking existing ADRs for conflicts or superseded decisions
- Very specific: line 25
Verify Draft is initialized:
- Very specific: line 31
If draft/ doesn't exist:
- Distinctive: line 36
Check for existing ADR directory:
- Very specific: line 42
If draft/adrs/ doesn't exist, create it:
- Very specific: line 59
If argument is list:
- Very specific: line 61
Prefer the deterministic adr-index.sh wrapper for the listing — it returns a structured JSON …
- Distinctive: line 87
Stop here after listing.
- Very specific: line 93
Read the ADR file draft/adrs/<number>-*.md
- Distinctive: line 96
Ask what new ADR supersedes it, or create the new one
- Distinctive: line 98
Stop here after updating.
- Very specific: line 102
If argument starts with evaluate:
- Distinctive: line 106
Read the proposal (from arguments, pasted text, file path, or ask user to describe)
- Very specific: line 108
Check existing ADRs in draft/adrs/ for related decisions
- Distinctive: line 146
Stop here after evaluation.
- Distinctive: line 155
Ask user or extract from arguments: What does it need to do?
- Distinctive: line 197
Stop here after design.
- Distinctive: line 201
If in interactive mode (no title provided), ask:
- Distinctive: line 207
If title provided, proceed directly with the title.
- Very specific: line 211
If an active track exists and draft/tracks/<id>/hld.md is present:
- Distinctive: line 213
Read HLD §Alternatives Considered table.
- Very specific: line 214
If any row is marked Promote to ADR?
- Very specific: line 227
After ADR creation, edit HLD §Alternatives Considered table: change the Promote to ADR?
- Distinctive: line 229
If invoked outside a track context, skip 2.1 and proceed with normal interactive flow.
- Very specific: line 233
Follow the base procedure in core/shared/draft-context-loading.md.
- Very specific: line 235
Read relevant Draft context:
- Very specific: line 256
Verify the target filename draft/adrs/<number>-<kebab-case-title>.md does not already exist.
- Very specific: line 363
If the decision affects existing Draft context:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 75 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Architecture Decision Records
You are creating or managing Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for this project.
Red Flags - STOP if you're
- Creating an ADR without understanding the decision context
- Documenting trivial decisions that don't warrant an ADR (e.g., variable naming)
- Writing an ADR after the fact without capturing the original reasoning
- Listing alternatives without genuine pros/cons analysis
- Skipping the "Consequences" section (the most valuable part)
- Not checking existing ADRs for conflicts or superseded decisions
ADRs capture WHY, not just WHAT. Every decision needs alternatives considered.
Pre-Check
- Verify Draft is initialized:
ls draft/ 2>/dev/nullIf draft/ doesn't exist:
- Tell user: "Project not initialized. Run
/draft:initfirst." - Stop here.
- Check for existing ADR directory:
ls draft/adrs/ 2>/dev/nullIf draft/adrs/ doesn't exist, create it:
mkdir -p draft/adrsStep 1: Parse Arguments
Check for arguments:
/draft:adr— Interactive mode: ask about the decision/draft:adr "decision title"— Create ADR with given title/draft:adr list— List all existing ADRs/draft:adr supersede <number>— Mark an ADR as superseded
List Mode
If argument is list:
Prefer the deterministic
adr-index.shwrapper for the listing — it returns a structured JSON{adrs:[{id,title,date,status,path,related_tracks}]}derived from each ADR's frontmatter. Resolve via the canonical tool resolver (see core/shared/tool-resolver.md):DRAFT_TOOLS="${DRAFT_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$(cat ~/.cache/draft/plugin-root 2>/dev/null)}/scripts/tools" [ -d "$DRAFT_TOOLS" ] || DRAFT_TOOLS="$(ls -d ~/.claude/plugins/cache/*/draft/*/scripts/tools 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)" [ -d "$DRAFT_TOOLS" ] || DRAFT_TOOLS="$(ls -d ~/.claude/plugins/marketplaces/*draft*/scripts/tools 2>/dev/null | tail -1)" [ -d "$DRAFT_TOOLS" ] || DRAFT_TOOLS="$PWD/scripts/tools" if [ -x "$DRAFT_TOOLS/adr-index.sh" ]; then bash "$DRAFT_TOOLS/adr-index.sh" --root draft/adrs else ls draft/adrs/ # fallback: enumerate files manually fi- Display summary table:
Architecture Decision Records
| # | Title | Status | Date |
|---|-------|--------|------|
| 001 | Use PostgreSQL for primary storage | Accepted | 2026-01-15 |
| 002 | Adopt event-driven architecture | Proposed | 2026-02-01 |
| 003 | Replace REST with GraphQL | Superseded by #005 | 2026-02-03 |Stop here after listing.
Supersede Mode
If argument is supersede <number>:
- Read the ADR file
draft/adrs/<number>-*.md - Change status from
AcceptedtoSuperseded by ADR-<new_number> - In the OLD ADR's References section, add: "Superseded by ADR-<new_number>"
- Ask what new ADR supersedes it, or create the new one
- In the NEW ADR's References section, add: "Supersedes ADR-<old_number>"
- Stop here after updating.
Evaluate Mode
If argument starts with evaluate:
/draft:adr evaluate <proposal or description>— Evaluate a design proposal
- Read the proposal (from arguments, pasted text, file path, or ask user to describe)
- Load project context:
draft/tech-stack.md,draft/.ai-context.md,draft/architecture.md - Check existing ADRs in
draft/adrs/for related decisions - Evaluate against six dimensions:
- Architecture alignment: Does it fit current patterns?
- Tech stack consistency: Does it introduce technology not in tech-stack.md?
- Invariant impact: Does it affect critical invariants from .ai-context.md?
- Scalability: How does it scale with data/users/team growth?
- Operational complexity: What new operational burden does it add?
- Team familiarity: Does the team have experience with this approach?
- Output evaluation report (do not save to file — display directly):
# Design Evaluation: <Title>
## Summary
[1-2 sentence assessment]
## Alignment Analysis
| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
|-----------|------------|-------|
| Architecture alignment | ✅ Aligned / ⚠️ Partial / ❌ Conflict | [detail] |
| Tech stack consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [detail] |
| Invariant impact | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [detail] |
| Scalability | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [detail] |
| Operational complexity | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [detail] |
| Team familiarity | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [detail] |
## Risks
- [Risk and mitigation strategy]
## Recommendation
[Accept as-is / Accept with modifications / Reconsider approach / Reject — with reasoning]
## Next Steps
If this leads to a decision: `/draft:adr "<decision title>"` to document it
If this needs a full design: `/draft:adr design "<system>"` to design itStop here after evaluation.
Design Mode
If argument starts with design:
/draft:adr design <system or component>— Full system/component design
- Gather requirements:
- Ask user or extract from arguments: What does it need to do?
- Functional requirements — Features and behaviors
- Non-functional requirements — Scale, latency, availability, cost targets
- Constraints — Team size, timeline, existing tech stack (from
draft/tech-stack.md)
- Load project context: same as ADR creation (Step 3 of main flow)
Design using 5-section framework:
Section 1: Requirements
- Functional requirements (bulleted list)
- Non-functional requirements (table: dimension, target, rationale)
- Constraints and assumptions
Section 2: High-Level Design
- Component diagram (ASCII)
- Data flow description
- API contracts (key endpoints/interfaces)
- Storage choices with rationale
Section 3: Deep Dive
- Data model design (key entities and relationships)
- API endpoint design (REST/GraphQL/gRPC with examples)
- Caching strategy (what, where, TTL, invalidation)
- Queue/event design (if applicable)
- Error handling and retry logic
Section 4: Scale & Reliability
- Load estimation (requests/sec, data growth)
- Scaling strategy (horizontal vs vertical)
- Failover and redundancy
- Monitoring and alerting requirements
Section 5: Trade-off Analysis
- Key trade-offs made (table: decision, alternative, why this choice)
- What to revisit as the system grows
- Risks and mitigations
- Determine design document number using same ADR numbering (Step 4 of main flow)
- Save to
draft/adrs/<number>-design-<kebab-case-title>.mdwith YAML frontmatter and git metadata (same format as ADR creation, Step 5) - Present for review (same as Step 6 of main flow)
Stop here after design.
Step 2: Gather Decision Context
If in interactive mode (no title provided), ask:
- "What technical decision needs to be documented?"
- "What's the context? What forces are driving this decision?"
- "What alternatives did you consider?"
If title provided, proceed directly with the title.
2.1 HLD Handoff (when invoked from a track context)
If an active track exists and draft/tracks/<id>/hld.md is present:
- Read HLD §Alternatives Considered table.
If any row is marked
Promote to ADR? yesand has not been promoted yet (no matching ADR exists), offer:Found 1 unpromoted alternative in <track>/hld.md: - {alternative} — rejected because: {reason} Promote to ADR? [Y/n]- When promoting:
- Pre-fill ADR §Context from HLD §Background and the §High-Level Design / Key Design Decisions row that drove this rejection.
- Pre-fill ADR §Decision from the HLD §Key Design Decision that was selected over this alternative.
- Pre-fill ADR §Alternatives Considered with the rejected alternative.
- Set frontmatter
originating_hld: draft/tracks/<id>/hld.md.
- After ADR creation, edit HLD §Alternatives Considered table: change the
Promote to ADR?cell toADR-<number>(linking back). Surface the diff to the user for confirmation.
If invoked outside a track context, skip 2.1 and proceed with normal interactive flow.
Step 3: Load Project Context
Follow the base procedure in core/shared/draft-context-loading.md.
Read relevant Draft context:
draft/.ai-context.md— Current architecture patterns, invariants, data paths, and constraints. Falls back todraft/architecture.mdfor legacy projects.draft/tech-stack.md— Current technology choicesdraft/product.md— Product requirements that influence the decision
Cross-reference the decision against existing context:
- Does it align with documented architecture patterns?
- Does it introduce a new technology not in tech-stack.md?
- Does it affect product requirements?
Step 4: Determine ADR Number
# Extract the highest existing ADR number from filenames
ls draft/adrs/*.md 2>/dev/null | sed 's/.*\/\([0-9]*\)-.*/\1/' | sort -n | tail -1Next number = highest existing ADR number + 1, zero-padded to 3 digits (001, 002, ...). If no ADRs exist, start at 001.
Verify the target filename draft/adrs/<number>-<kebab-case-title>.md does not already exist. If collision, increment the number until a free slot is found.
Step 5: Create ADR File
MANDATORY: Include YAML frontmatter with git metadata. Gather git info first:
git branch --show-current # LOCAL_BRANCH
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref @{upstream} 2>/dev/null || echo "none" # REMOTE/BRANCH
git rev-parse HEAD # FULL_SHA
git rev-parse --short HEAD # SHORT_SHA
git log -1 --format=%ci HEAD # COMMIT_DATE
git log -1 --format=%s HEAD # COMMIT_MESSAGE
git status --porcelain | head -1 | wc -l # 0 = clean, >0 = dirtyCreate draft/adrs/<number>-<kebab-case-title>.md:
---
project: "{PROJECT_NAME}"
module: "root"
adr_number: <number>
generated_by: "draft:adr"
generated_at: "{ISO_TIMESTAMP}"
git:
branch: "{LOCAL_BRANCH}"
remote: "{REMOTE/BRANCH}"
commit: "{FULL_SHA}"
commit_short: "{SHORT_SHA}"
commit_date: "{COMMIT_DATE}"
commit_message: "{COMMIT_MESSAGE}"
dirty: {true|false}
synced_to_commit: "{FULL_SHA}"
# Optional — populated when ADR is promoted from a track HLD §Alternatives Considered row.
originating_hld: "{path/to/draft/tracks/<id>/hld.md or null}"
originating_track: "{<track_id> or null}"
---
# ADR-<number>: <Title>
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Branch** | `{LOCAL_BRANCH}` → `{REMOTE/BRANCH}` |
| **Commit** | `{SHORT_SHA}` — {COMMIT_MESSAGE} |
| **Generated** | {ISO_TIMESTAMP} |
| **Synced To** | `{FULL_SHA}` |
**Status:** Proposed
**Deciders:** [names or roles]
## Context
[What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?]
[What forces are at play (technical, business, organizational)?]
## Decision
[What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?]
[State the decision in active voice: "We will..."]
## Alternatives Considered
### Alternative 1: <name>
- **Pros:** [advantages]
- **Cons:** [disadvantages]
- **Why rejected:** [specific reason]
### Alternative 2: <name>
- **Pros:** [advantages]
- **Cons:** [disadvantages]
- **Why rejected:** [specific reason]
## Consequences
### Positive
- [Benefit 1]
- [Benefit 2]
### Negative
- [Trade-off 1]
- [Trade-off 2]
### Risks
- [Risk and mitigation]
## References
- [Link to relevant discussion, RFC, or documentation]
- [Related ADRs: ADR-xxx]
- [Originating HLD: draft/tracks/<id>/hld.md §Alternatives Considered] (only when promoted from a track)Step 6: Present for Review
Present the ADR to the user for review:
ADR-<number> created: <title>
File: draft/adrs/<number>-<kebab-case-title>.md
Status: Proposed
Review the ADR and update status to "Accepted" when approved.Step 7: Update References (if applicable)
If the decision affects existing Draft context:
- tech-stack.md — If introducing or removing technology, note: "Consider updating draft/tech-stack.md to reflect this decision."
- architecture.md — If changing architectural patterns, note: "Consider updating
draft/architecture.mdto reflect this decision (.ai-context.mdwill be auto-refreshed via Condensation Subroutine)." - Superseded ADRs — If this decision replaces a previous one, update the old ADR's status.
ADR Status Lifecycle
Proposed → Accepted → [Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-xxx]- Proposed — Decision documented, awaiting review
- Accepted — Decision approved and in effect
- Deprecated — Decision no longer relevant (context changed)
- Superseded — Replaced by a newer decision (link to replacement)
Error Handling
If no draft/ directory:
- Tell user to run
/draft:initfirst
If ADR number conflict:
- Increment to next available number
- Warn: "ADR-
<number>already exists. Using ADR-<next>."
If superseding non-existent ADR:
- Warn: "ADR-
<number>not found. Checkdraft/adrs/for valid ADR numbers."
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.

