agentleFS
jmrplensjmrplens/gitlab-mcp-server/.github/skills/create-architectural-decision-record/SKILL.md

create-architectural-decision-record

Skill47 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Create an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) document for AI-optimized decision documentation.

6 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 5 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 5

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Create an ADR document for ${input:DecisionTitle} using structured formatting optimized for AI consumption and human readability.

    line 8
  2. Common:

    If any of the required inputs are not provided or cannot be determined from the conversation history, ask the user to provide the missing …

    line 19
  3. Common:

    Use precise, unambiguous language

    line 23
  4. Common:

    Follow standardized ADR format with front matter

    line 24
  5. Common:

    Document alternatives with rejection rationale

    line 26
  6. Common:

    Use coded bullet points (3-4 letter codes + 3-digit numbers) for multi-item sections

    line 28

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Create Architectural Decision Record

Create an ADR document for ${input:DecisionTitle} using structured formatting optimized for AI consumption and human readability.

Inputs

  • Context: ${input:Context}
  • Decision: ${input:Decision}
  • Alternatives: ${input:Alternatives}
  • Stakeholders: ${input:Stakeholders}

Input Validation

If any of the required inputs are not provided or cannot be determined from the conversation history, ask the user to provide the missing information before proceeding with ADR generation.

Requirements

  • Use precise, unambiguous language
  • Follow standardized ADR format with front matter
  • Include both positive and negative consequences
  • Document alternatives with rejection rationale
  • Structure for machine parsing and human reference
  • Use coded bullet points (3-4 letter codes + 3-digit numbers) for multi-item sections

The ADR must be saved in the /docs/development/adr directory using the naming convention: adr-NNNN-[title-slug].md, where NNNN is the next sequential 4-digit number (e.g., adr-0001-database-selection.md).

Required Documentation Structure

The documentation file must follow the template below, ensuring that all sections are filled out appropriately. The front matter for the markdown should be structured correctly as per the example following:

---
title: "ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]"
status: "Proposed"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
authors: "[Stakeholder Names/Roles]"
tags: ["architecture", "decision"]
supersedes: ""
superseded_by: ""
---

# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]

## Status

**Proposed** | Accepted | Rejected | Superseded | Deprecated

## Context

[Problem statement, technical constraints, business requirements, and environmental factors requiring this decision.]

## Decision

[Chosen solution with clear rationale for selection.]

## Consequences

### Positive

- **POS-001**: [Beneficial outcomes and advantages]
- **POS-002**: [Performance, maintainability, scalability improvements]
- **POS-003**: [Alignment with architectural principles]

### Negative

- **NEG-001**: [Trade-offs, limitations, drawbacks]
- **NEG-002**: [Technical debt or complexity introduced]
- **NEG-003**: [Risks and future challenges]

## Alternatives Considered

### [Alternative 1 Name]

- **ALT-001**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
- **ALT-002**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]

### [Alternative 2 Name]

- **ALT-003**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
- **ALT-004**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]

## Implementation Notes

- **IMP-001**: [Key implementation considerations]
- **IMP-002**: [Migration or rollout strategy if applicable]
- **IMP-003**: [Monitoring and success criteria]

## References

- **REF-001**: [Related ADRs]
- **REF-002**: [External documentation]
- **REF-003**: [Standards or frameworks referenced]

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.