adr
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) in the Structured MADR format — one decision, its drivers, the options weighed with risk, the chosen outcome, the consequences accepted, and an audit trail — validated by the structured-madr Action in both smadr and MIF modes. Use when a team is making or capturing a consequential, hard-to-reverse technical choice and needs it documented with rationale. Anti-trigger; for a how-to use diataxis-how-to, for requirements use prd or feature-spec, not an ADR.
90 other projects use a version of this.
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 10 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 · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 90
- 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
80 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 repository46 other files it gives its agents.
- academicSkill
- ai-architecture-docSkill
- arc42-arch-docSkill
- audit-docsSkill
- briefingSkill
- business-planSkill
- c4-model-diagramSkill
- changelogSkill
- clinical-submissionSkill
- competitive-quadrantSkill
- compliance-auditSkill
- computing-paperSkill
- diataxis-explanationSkill
- diataxis-how-toSkill
- diataxis-referenceSkill
- diataxis-tutorialSkill
- doc-set-plannerSkill
- ears-acceptance-criteriaSkill
- engineeringSkill
- exec-summarySkill
- feature-specSkill
- google-design-docSkill
- humanities-chicagoSkill
- humanities-mlaSkill
- kiro-designSkill
- kiro-requirementsSkill
- kiro-tasksSkill
- legal-memoSkill
- market-research-reportSkill
- mif-corpusSkill
- mif-frontmatterSkill
- mif-provenanceSkill
- mif-to-pdfSkill
- mif-validateSkill
- nist-spSkill
- playbookSkill
- prdSkill
- python-pepSkill
- regulatory-disclosureSkill
- rust-rfcSkill
- security-pentestSkill
- sre-runbookSkill
- sustainability-reportSkill
- svg-chartsSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- trend-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 75 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 65
Always state Consequences — the Bad and Neutral ones especially.
- Distinctive: line 69
No placeholder text — every section reflects a real position.
“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
adr
Produces an Architectural Decision Record: a short, immutable document that captures one architecturally significant decision — the context that forced it, the options considered, the option chosen, and the consequences the team accepts. An ADR records a decision, not a task and not a requirement; if there are no alternatives to weigh, it is not an ADR.
This genre is fully aligned to Structured MADR (structured-madr) — the
MIF-native ADR format. The emitted ADR validates against the canonical
modeled-information-format/structured-madr GitHub Action in both of its
modes: smadr (the structured-MADR frontmatter + section schema) and mif (MIF
conformance, levels 1-3). The suite reuses that Action; it does not re-implement
ADR validation.
Pattern (Structured MADR)
Required frontmatter: title, description, type: adr, category, tags,
status (lifecycle enum), created (date), updated (date), author,
project. Optional: technologies, audience, related (each *.md).
Required sections, in order:
- # ADR-NNNN: <Title> — H1 matches the frontmatter
title. - ## Status — the lifecycle state.
- ## Context →
### Background and Problem Statement(+### Current Limitations). - ## Decision Drivers →
### Primary Decision Drivers+### Secondary Decision Drivers. Express testable drivers in EARS (ears-acceptance-criteria). - ## Considered Options —
### Option N: <Name>each with a Risk Assessment (Technical / Schedule / Ecosystem). - ## Decision — the chosen option and implementation specifics.
- ## Consequences —
### Positive/### Negative/### Neutral. - ## Decision Outcome — how the decision meets its objectives, with mitigations.
- ## Related Decisions, ## Links, ## More Information.
- ## Audit — dated entries with a status from {Pending, Compliant, Non-Compliant, Partial}.
Lifecycle states
proposed -> accepted -> deprecated
\-> superseded (by a newer ADR)proposed— drafted, under review; the decision is not yet binding.accepted— the decision is in force.deprecated— no longer recommended, with no direct replacement.superseded— replaced by a newer ADR; link it (typically via arelationships[]entry of typesuperseded-by).
An accepted ADR is immutable: to change the decision, write a new ADR that supersedes it rather than editing the outcome in place.
Rules that keep it an ADR
- Exactly one decision per record. Split compound decisions into separate ADRs.
- At least two genuinely considered options; "no alternatives" means no ADR.
- Always state Consequences — the Bad and Neutral ones especially. An ADR that lists only upside is hiding its cost.
- Status MUST be one of the lifecycle enum; no free-form statuses ("done", "final").
- No placeholder text — every section reflects a real position.
Why machine-readable — the point of MIF here
An ADR's value is mostly consumed by machines: an agent deciding whether a decision still holds, a CI gate flagging a stale one, a dependency walker tracing which spec realizes it. As prose (L1) all of that requires reading and inferring. The MIF layer makes those questions answerable by reading frontmatter:
| Question an agent asks | Answered by (frontmatter) |
| Is this decision still valid? | temporal.validUntil / ttl |
| What replaces or realizes it? | typed relationships[] (superseded-by, realized-by) |
| Where did it come from; can I trust it? | provenance (W3C-PROV) + trustLevel |
| What kind of thing is this? | ontology (decision-record) + conceptType |
| What evidence backs it? | citations[] |
The same document still reads as a human ADR and projects losslessly to JSON-LD and back — one artifact, two readers.
The MIF L1 -> L2 -> L3 climb (one doc, smadr's profiles)
In Structured MADR the MIF level is a property of the projection, not of a
separate file: structured-madr derives the MIF JSON-LD from the ADR's frontmatter
(created/updated → temporal, author/project → provenance, related →
relationships[], technologies → entities[], conceptType: semantic). So a
single complete ADR satisfies the MIF floor at every level. templates/good.md
validates with the structured-madr Action at mif --level 1, 2, and 3
(all pass) and in smadr strict mode (0 errors).
Validate the ADR with the canonical Action, not this suite's mif-validate
(which keys on conceptType and is for the other genres):
# smadr mode (structural) # mif mode (conformance, level 1|2|3)
node <action>/src/validate.js node <action>/.github/bin/mif-validate.js --level 3templates/bad.md shows the antipattern: no options, no consequences, a status
outside the enum, missing required sections.
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.

