本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

adr-writer

Creates Architecture Decision Records documenting key technical decisions with context, alternatives considered, tradeoffs, consequences, and decision owners. Use when documenting "architecture decisions", "technical choices", "design decisions", or "ADRs".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

ADR Writer

Document architecture decisions with clear context, alternatives, and consequences.

ADR Template

# ADR-001: [Title of Decision]

**Status:** Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX
**Date:** 2024-01-15
**Deciders:** Alice (Tech Lead), Bob (Principal Engineer)
**Owner:** Alice

## Context

What is the issue we're facing? What factors are driving this decision?

We need to choose a database for our new analytics service. Current
requirements:

- 10M+ events per day
- Complex aggregation queries
- Real-time dashboards
- Budget: $5k/month
- Team familiar with SQL

## Decision

We will use PostgreSQL with TimescaleDB extension.

## Alternatives Considered

### Option 1: PostgreSQL + TimescaleDB (CHOSEN)

**Pros:**

- Team already knows PostgreSQL
- Time-series optimization for analytics
- Reliable and proven
- Good query performance
- Reasonable cost (~$3k/month)

**Cons:**

- Requires manual scaling effort
- Not purpose-built for analytics

### Option 2: ClickHouse

**Pros:**

- Excellent query performance for analytics
- Built for analytics workloads
- Column-oriented storage

**Cons:**

- Team unfamiliar with ClickHouse
- Steeper learning curve
- Different query syntax

### Option 3: BigQuery

**Pros:**

- Fully managed
- Excellent for analytics
- Scales automatically

**Cons:**

- Higher cost (~$8k/month for our volume)
- Vendor lock-in to GCP
- Less control over optimization

## Tradeoffs

**What we're optimizing for:**

- Team velocity (familiar tech)
- Cost efficiency
- Good enough performance

**What we're sacrificing:**

- Peak analytical performance (vs ClickHouse)
- Fully managed experience (vs BigQuery)

## Consequences

### Positive

- Development can start immediately (no learning curve)
- Lower operational costs
- Can reuse existing PostgreSQL expertise
- Easy integration with current stack

### Negative

- Will need to manually optimize queries
- May need to revisit if we scale 10x
- Requires more operational work than BigQuery

### Risks

- Performance may degrade at 100M+ events/day
- **Mitigation:** Monitor query performance, plan migration at 50M events/day

## Implementation Notes

- Use TimescaleDB hypertables for event storage
- Implement continuous aggregates for common queries
- Set up read replicas for dashboard queries
- Document scaling runbook at 50M events/day

## Follow-up Actions

- [ ] Provision PostgreSQL + TimescaleDB cluster (Alice, by 2024-01-20)
- [ ] Create migration script from MySQL (Bob, by 2024-01-22)
- [ ] Set up monitoring dashboards (Alice, by 2024-01-25)
- [ ] Document scaling thresholds (Alice, by 2024-01-30)

## References

- [TimescaleDB Benchmarks](https://example.com)
- [Cost Analysis Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/...)
- [Team Survey Results](https://example.com)

## Revision History

- 2024-01-15: Initial draft (Alice)
- 2024-01-16: Added cost analysis (Bob)
- 2024-01-17: Accepted by architecture review board

ADR Numbering

ADR-001: Initial System Architecture
ADR-002: Database Selection for Analytics
ADR-003: Authentication Strategy
...

Status Workflow

Proposed → Accepted → Implemented
    ↓
Rejected

Accepted → Deprecated → Superseded by ADR-XXX

Common Decision Types

Technology Selection:

  • Database choice
  • Framework selection
  • Cloud provider
  • Programming language

Architecture Patterns:

  • Microservices vs Monolith
  • Event-driven vs Request-response
  • Sync vs Async communication

Infrastructure:

  • Deployment strategy
  • Monitoring approach
  • Scaling strategy

Security:

  • Authentication method
  • Data encryption approach
  • Access control model

Quick Start Guide

# 1. Create new ADR
cp templates/adr-template.md docs/adr/ADR-042-title.md

# 2. Fill in sections
# - Context: Why are we making this decision?
# - Decision: What did we decide?
# - Alternatives: What else did we consider?
# - Consequences: What are the impacts?

# 3. Review with team
# - Share in architecture channel
# - Get feedback from stakeholders
# - Iterate on alternatives

# 4. Update status to "Accepted"
# 5. Link from main architecture docs

Best Practices

  1. Write ADRs for significant decisions: Not every choice needs an ADR
  2. Document alternatives: Show you considered options
  3. Be honest about tradeoffs: Every decision has downsides
  4. Keep it concise: 1-2 pages maximum
  5. Update status: Mark deprecated/superseded ADRs
  6. Link related ADRs: Create decision trails
  7. Include follow-ups: Action items with owners

Anti-Patterns

❌ Too detailed: 10-page ADRs nobody reads ❌ No alternatives: Looks like decision was predetermined ❌ Missing consequences: Ignoring downsides ❌ No owner: Nobody accountable ❌ Outdated status: Old ADRs marked "Proposed"

Review Checklist

  • Clear problem statement in Context
  • Decision is stated explicitly
  • 2+ alternatives considered
  • Tradeoffs honestly assessed
  • Consequences (positive and negative) documented
  • Risks identified with mitigations
  • Decision owner assigned
  • Follow-up actions with deadlines
  • Status is current

Output Checklist

  • ADR document created
  • Context explains the problem
  • Decision clearly stated
  • 2-3 alternatives documented
  • Tradeoffs section filled
  • Consequences listed (positive & negative)
  • Risks identified with mitigations
  • Decision date and owners
  • Follow-up actions assigned
  • Status is set

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Audits and implements web accessibility (a11y) following WCAG 2.1 guidelines with ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen reader support, and contrast checking. Use when users request "accessibility audit", "a11y review", "WCAG compliance", "screen reader support", or "keyboard navigation".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

Designs multi-step agent workflows with tool usage, retry logic, state management, and budget controls. Provides orchestration diagrams, tool execution order, fallback strategies, and cost limits. Use for "AI agents", "agentic workflows", "multi-step AI", or "autonomous systems".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

MUST USE when user wants to 调研/research/搜索/search/查/找/look up anything on the internet — e.g. 全网调研 X / 帮我调研一下 X / 查一下 X / 搜搜 X / 看看大家怎么评价 X / X 上有什么讨论 / research this topic。 Also MUST USE when user mentions any platform or shares any URL/链接: 小红书/xiaohongshu/xhs, Twitter/推特/X, B站/bilibili, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, V2EX, LinkedIn/领英/招聘/求职/jobs, YouTube, GitHub code search, 小宇宙播客, 雪球/股票行情, RSS feeds, or any web URL. 15 platforms, multi-backend routing (OpenCLI / per-platform CLIs / APIs). Zero config for 6 channels. Run `agent-reach doctor --json` to see which backend serves each platform right now. NOT for: 写报告/数据分析/翻译等内容加工(本 skill 只负责从互联网获取内容); 发帖/评论/点赞等写操作;已有专门 skill 的平台(先用专门 skill)。 【路由方式】SKILL.md 包含路由表和常用命令,复杂场景需按需阅读对应分类的 references/*.md。 分类:search / social (小红书/推特/B站/V2EX/Reddit/Facebook/Instagram) / career(LinkedIn) / dev(github) / web(网页/文章/RSS) / video(YouTube/B站/播客) / finance(雪球/股票)。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

Orchestrates multi-agent AI systems with task delegation, agent communication, shared memory, and workflow coordination. Use when users request "multi-agent system", "agent orchestration", "AI agents", "agent coordination", or "autonomous agents".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

Creates SLO-based alerts and operational dashboards with key charts, alert thresholds, and runbook links. Use for "alerting", "dashboards", "SLO", or "monitoring".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

animate

無料

Build an animation from scratch, making the decisions in the order that determines whether it feels right — should it animate at all, what purpose, which tool, which properties, which curve and duration, how it interrupts, how it exits. Writes the implementation. Use when asked to animate something, add motion, make a component feel alive, or build a transition. For critiquing existing motion use review-animations; for auditing a whole codebase use improve-animations.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

sathishssj3/Stereix-Engine22026年10月4日 更新

sathishssj3 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する