本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

architecture-decision-records

Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.0 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。

Architecture Decision Records

Capture architectural decisions as they happen during coding sessions. Instead of decisions living only in Slack threads, PR comments, or someone's memory, this skill produces structured ADR documents that live alongside the code.

When to Activate

  • User explicitly says "let's record this decision" or "ADR this"
  • User chooses between significant alternatives (framework, library, pattern, database, API design)
  • User says "we decided to..." or "the reason we're doing X instead of Y is..."
  • User asks "why did we choose X?" (read existing ADRs)
  • During planning phases when architectural trade-offs are discussed

ADR Format

Use the lightweight ADR format proposed by Michael Nygard, adapted for AI-assisted development:

# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]

**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Status**: proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN
**Deciders**: [who was involved]

## Context

What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?

[2-5 sentences describing the situation, constraints, and forces at play]

## Decision

What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?

[1-3 sentences stating the decision clearly]

## Alternatives Considered

### Alternative 1: [Name]
- **Pros**: [benefits]
- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]

### Alternative 2: [Name]
- **Pros**: [benefits]
- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]

## Consequences

What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?

### Positive
- [benefit 1]
- [benefit 2]

### Negative
- [trade-off 1]
- [trade-off 2]

### Risks
- [risk and mitigation]

Workflow

Capturing a New ADR

When a decision moment is detected:

  1. Initialize (first time only) — if docs/adr/ does not exist, ask the user for confirmation before creating the directory, a README.md seeded with the index table header (see ADR Index Format below), and a blank template.md for manual use. Do not create files without explicit consent.
  2. Identify the decision — extract the core architectural choice being made
  3. Gather context — what problem prompted this? What constraints exist?
  4. Document alternatives — what other options were considered? Why were they rejected?
  5. State consequences — what are the trade-offs? What becomes easier/harder?
  6. Assign a number — scan existing ADRs in docs/adr/ and increment
  7. Confirm and write — present the draft ADR to the user for review. Only write to docs/adr/NNNN-decision-title.md after explicit approval. If the user declines, discard the draft without writing any files.
  8. Update the index — append to docs/adr/README.md

Reading Existing ADRs

When a user asks "why did we choose X?":

  1. Check if docs/adr/ exists — if not, respond: "No ADRs found in this project. Would you like to start recording architectural decisions?"
  2. If it exists, scan docs/adr/README.md index for relevant entries
  3. Read matching ADR files and present the Context and Decision sections
  4. If no match is found, respond: "No ADR found for that decision. Would you like to record one now?"

ADR Directory Structure

docs/
└── adr/
    ├── README.md              ← index of all ADRs
    ├── 0001-use-nextjs.md
    ├── 0002-postgres-over-mongo.md
    ├── 0003-rest-over-graphql.md
    └── template.md            ← blank template for manual use

ADR Index Format

# Architecture Decision Records

| ADR | Title | Status | Date |
|-----|-------|--------|------|
| [0001](0001-use-nextjs.md) | Use Next.js as frontend framework | accepted | 2026-01-15 |
| [0002](0002-postgres-over-mongo.md) | PostgreSQL over MongoDB for primary datastore | accepted | 2026-01-20 |
| [0003](0003-rest-over-graphql.md) | REST API over GraphQL | accepted | 2026-02-01 |

Decision Detection Signals

Watch for these patterns in conversation that indicate an architectural decision:

Explicit signals

  • "Let's go with X"
  • "We should use X instead of Y"
  • "The trade-off is worth it because..."
  • "Record this as an ADR"

Implicit signals (suggest recording an ADR — do not auto-create without user confirmation)

  • Comparing two frameworks or libraries and reaching a conclusion
  • Making a database schema design choice with stated rationale
  • Choosing between architectural patterns (monolith vs microservices, REST vs GraphQL)
  • Deciding on authentication/authorization strategy
  • Selecting deployment infrastructure after evaluating alternatives

What Makes a Good ADR

Do

  • Be specific — "Use Prisma ORM" not "use an ORM"
  • Record the why — the rationale matters more than the what
  • Include rejected alternatives — future developers need to know what was considered
  • State consequences honestly — every decision has trade-offs
  • Keep it short — an ADR should be readable in 2 minutes
  • Use present tense — "We use X" not "We will use X"

Don't

  • Record trivial decisions — variable naming or formatting choices don't need ADRs
  • Write essays — if the context section exceeds 10 lines, it's too long
  • Omit alternatives — "we just picked it" is not a valid rationale
  • Backfill without marking it — if recording a past decision, note the original date
  • Let ADRs go stale — superseded decisions should reference their replacement

ADR Lifecycle

proposed → accepted → [deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN]
  • proposed: decision is under discussion, not yet committed
  • accepted: decision is in effect and being followed
  • deprecated: decision is no longer relevant (e.g., feature removed)
  • superseded: a newer ADR replaces this one (always link the replacement)

Categories of Decisions Worth Recording

CategoryExamples
Technology choicesFramework, language, database, cloud provider
Architecture patternsMonolith vs microservices, event-driven, CQRS
API designREST vs GraphQL, versioning strategy, auth mechanism
Data modelingSchema design, normalization decisions, caching strategy
InfrastructureDeployment model, CI/CD pipeline, monitoring stack
SecurityAuth strategy, encryption approach, secret management
TestingTest framework, coverage targets, E2E vs integration balance
ProcessBranching strategy, review process, release cadence

Integration with Other Skills

  • Planner agent: when the planner proposes architecture changes, suggest creating an ADR
  • Code reviewer agent: flag PRs that introduce architectural changes without a corresponding ADR

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

Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

tensology のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する