跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

architecture-decision-records

Record software design decisions as numbered Markdown files, with context, rejected alternatives, benefits, drawbacks, and risks. Maintain an index and consult existing ADRs—architecture decision records—to explain why a framework, database, or design approach was chosen.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Capture architectural decisions as numbered ADR markdown files in docs/adr/ with context, alternatives considered, consequences, and an index README. Use when the user says 'record this decision' or 'ADR this', chooses between frameworks or databases, discusses trade-offs, or asks why the codebase is shaped this way.

集成工具PostgreSQL
查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Record reasons for framework or database choices
  • Document design alternatives and trade-offs
  • Find explanations for past technical decisions
  • Track decisions replaced by newer ones

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md7.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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**Status**: proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN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

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月5日 更新

查看 affaan-m 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题