to-adr
Skill8 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turn an architecture discussion, design conversation, rejected proposal, or selected refactoring direction into a complete Architecture Decision Record. Use after a conversation has clarified context, decision, alternatives, tradeoffs, consequences, or an architecture choice that future contributors should not re-litigate.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- protokol11/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Integralist/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- helderberto/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- bpappin/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 2, 2026
- chrisetheridge/skillstheir own version, first seen May 11, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- Integralist/agent-skills★ 23same name
- helderberto/agent-skills★ 19same name
- chrisetheridge/skills★ 4same name
- bpappin/skills★ 1same name
- protokol11/skills★ 1same 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- create-issueSkill
- dumb-it-downSkill
- falsify-projectSkill
- from-issueSkill
- github-repo-hygieneSkill
- new-featureSkill
- overengineering-reviewSkill
- project-doc-scaffolderSkill
- system-diagrammerSkill
- test-writerSkill
- verify-projectSkill
- zero-techdebtSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
17
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Use this skill after an architecture or design conversation has produced a decision worth preserving.
- Distinctive: line 17
Read the current conversation first.
- Distinctive: line 19
If the discussion came from architecture work, preserve the project's domain language and architecture vocabulary: module, interface, …
- Very specific: line 21
Look for docs/adr/, adr/, decisions/, CONTEXT.md, DESIGN.md, and existing ADR files.
- Very specific: line 23
If no convention exists, create docs/adr/NNNN-title.md starting at 0001.
- Distinctive: line 24
Check whether an ADR is justified.
- Distinctive: line 25
Write an ADR for decisions that future contributors or agents need to understand.
- Distinctive: line 26
Do not write an ADR for ephemeral priority calls, obvious implementation details, or undecided options.
- Distinctive: line 27
If the conversation rejected a tempting architecture direction for a load-bearing reason, that can be an ADR.
- Distinctive: line 29
Ask one targeted question if the decision, status, or chosen option is unclear.
- Distinctive: line 30
Do not ask for information that can be inferred from the conversation or existing ADRs.
- Distinctive: line 36
Keep implementation snippets out unless they encode the decision more clearly than prose.
- Distinctive: line 39
Check for broken numbering, duplicate titles, unresolved placeholders, and stale contradictions with existing ADRs.
- Distinctive: line 44
Use this only when the project has no existing ADR format.
- Distinctive: line 74
Do not invent a decision. If the conversation only explored options, draft a proposed ADR and mark the unresolved question clearly.
- Distinctive: line 75
Do not re-litigate existing ADRs unless the conversation explicitly decided to supersede or reopen one.
- Distinctive: line 76
Do not create multiple ADRs unless the conversation contains multiple independent decisions.
- Distinctive: line 77
Do not create issues or PRs unless the user explicitly asks.
- Distinctive: line 79
Prefer one complete ADR over a generic summary document.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
To ADR
Use this skill after an architecture or design conversation has produced a decision worth preserving.
The goal is to write a durable ADR from the discussion, not to restart architecture exploration.
Workflow
- Gather decision context.
- Read the current conversation first.
- Identify the decision, why it came up, alternatives discussed, constraints, tradeoffs, and consequences.
- If the discussion came from architecture work, preserve the project's domain language and architecture vocabulary: module, interface, implementation, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, and locality.
- Inspect existing project conventions.
- Look for
docs/adr/,adr/,decisions/,CONTEXT.md,DESIGN.md, and existing ADR files. - Match the existing ADR location, numbering, title style, status vocabulary, and format.
- If no convention exists, create
docs/adr/NNNN-title.mdstarting at0001.
- Look for
- Check whether an ADR is justified.
- Write an ADR for decisions that future contributors or agents need to understand.
- Do not write an ADR for ephemeral priority calls, obvious implementation details, or undecided options.
- If the conversation rejected a tempting architecture direction for a load-bearing reason, that can be an ADR.
- Fill gaps only when necessary.
- Ask one targeted question if the decision, status, or chosen option is unclear.
- Do not ask for information that can be inferred from the conversation or existing ADRs.
- Write the ADR.
- Include enough context that a future agent understands why the decision was made.
- Explain alternatives and rejected options without straw-manning them.
- Make consequences concrete: what gets easier, what gets harder, and what follow-up work remains.
- For architecture ADRs, describe how the decision changes locality, leverage, test surface, and future seams.
- Keep implementation snippets out unless they encode the decision more clearly than prose.
- Verify.
- Confirm the ADR path and title.
- Check for broken numbering, duplicate titles, unresolved placeholders, and stale contradictions with existing ADRs.
- Report what was created or updated.
Default ADR Format
Use this only when the project has no existing ADR format.
# NNNN - Decision title
Status: Proposed | Accepted | Superseded
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
## Context
What situation, pressure, constraint, or recurring confusion led to this decision?
## Decision
What did we decide?
## Alternatives Considered
- Option: why it was not chosen.
## Consequences
- Positive consequence.
- Negative or tradeoff consequence.
- Follow-up work required.Guardrails
- Do not invent a decision. If the conversation only explored options, draft a proposed ADR and mark the unresolved question clearly.
- Do not re-litigate existing ADRs unless the conversation explicitly decided to supersede or reopen one.
- Do not create multiple ADRs unless the conversation contains multiple independent decisions.
- Do not create issues or PRs unless the user explicitly asks.
- Preserve precise terms from
CONTEXT.mdand existing ADRs. - Prefer one complete ADR over a generic summary document.
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.

