agentleFS
sagarithmsagarithm/sagarithm-kit/.cursor/rules/documentation-architectural-decision-records.mdc

sagarithm-kit / rules

Cursor rule17 starsChanged 12 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

The file

We split this documentation-architectural-decision-records.mdc into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Identify Consequential Decisions: Not every bug fix requires an ADR.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Use Quantitative Matrices for Contested Choices: When evaluating multiple competing technologies, employ a weighted decision matrix to …

    line 18

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 6,668 Cursor rule 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
documentation-architectural-decision-records.mdc
<!-- SAGARITHM:START - DO NOT EDIT DIRECTLY -->
---
description: "Author, update, and manage Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) using MADR 3.0 and quantitative decision matrices to record trade-offs."
globs: ["**/*"]
alwaysApply: false
---

# Architectural Decision Records (ADRs)

# Architectural Decision Records (ADRs)

## Overview
This skill guides AI agents and engineers in capturing consequential architectural decisions as living, version-controlled records. ADRs preserve institutional memory, explain the *why* behind complex designs, and prevent recurring circular debates.

## Core Directives
1. **Identify Consequential Decisions**: Not every bug fix requires an ADR; write an ADR whenever a structural choice has long-term implications or accepts explicit trade-offs.
2. **Follow MADR Standards**: Structure ADRs with clear Context, Decision Drivers, Options, Outcome, and Trade-offs.
3. **Use Quantitative Matrices for Contested Choices**: When evaluating multiple competing technologies, employ a weighted decision matrix to anchor choices objectively.
4. **Record Both Pros and Cons**: A balanced decision record explicitly documents accepted downsides and operational costs.
5. **Immutable History**: Once an ADR is accepted, do not edit its historical decision text; create a new ADR that supersedes the prior one.

## 🛑 Anti-Rationalization Matrix

| Agent Excuse / Shortcut | Documentation Reality | Mandatory Action |
|---|---|---|
| *"We can document this technology choice later."* | Rationale is forgotten within weeks; future engineers will question why it was built this way. | Commit the ADR alongside the implementation PR. |
| *"The choice was obvious, no need to write options considered."* | Without documenting rejected alternatives, teams repeat the same debates repeatedly. | Document at least two viable alternatives and why they were rejected. |
| *"This architectural decision only affects this one file."* | If it introduces a new external dependency or state model, it affects the entire system. | Record any external dependency or protocol choice in `docs/adr/`. |

## Detailed Guidance
- [ADR Lifecycle & Structural Guidelines](references/adr-lifecycle-and-structure.md)
- [MADR 3.0 & Quantitative Decision Matrices](references/madr-and-decision-matrices.md)
- [Canonical ADR Sample](examples/canonical-adr-sample.md)
- [Quantitative Decision Matrix Sample](examples/quantitative-decision-matrix-sample.md)
- [ADR Authoring Checklist](checklists/adr-authoring-checklist.md)
<!-- SAGARITHM:END -->

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.