architecture-decision-records
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 i
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 1
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 ee20738f31d40aca… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
SKILL.md
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**Status**: proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN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:
- Initialize (first time only) — if
docs/adr/does not exist, ask the user for confirmation before creating the directory, aREADME.mdseeded with the index table header (see ADR Index Format below), and a blanktemplate.mdfor manual use. Do not create files without explicit consent. - Identify the decision — extract the core architectural choice being made
- Gather context — what problem prompted this? What constraints exist?
- Document alternatives — what other options were considered? Why were they rejected?
- State consequences — what are the trade-offs? What becomes easier/harder?
- Assign a number — scan existing ADRs in
docs/adr/and increment - Confirm and write — present the draft ADR to the user for review. Only write to
docs/adr/NNNN-decision-title.mdafter explicit approval. If the user declines, discard the draft without writing any files. - Update the index — append to
docs/adr/README.md
Reading Existing ADRs
When a user asks "why did we choose X?":
- Check if
docs/adr/exists — if not, respond: "No ADRs found in this project. Would you like to start recording architectural decisions?" - If it exists, scan
docs/adr/README.mdindex for relevant entries - Read matching ADR files and present the Context and Decision sections
- 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
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Technology choices | Framework, language, database, cloud provider |
| Architecture patterns | Monolith vs microservices, event-driven, CQRS |
| API design | REST vs GraphQL, versioning strategy, auth mechanism |
| Data modeling | Schema design, normalization decisions, caching strategy |
| Infrastructure | Deployment model, CI/CD pipeline, monitoring stack |
| Security | Auth strategy, encryption approach, secret management |
| Testing | Test framework, coverage targets, E2E vs integration balance |
| Process | Branching 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
Files
1- SKILL.md
263b20e8187.0 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from affaan-m/everything-claude-code8
Design, implement, and audit accessible UI to WCAG 2.2 Level AA across Web, iOS, and Android — semantic ARIA roles and labels, accessibility traits and hints, focus management, contrast, target size, and screen-reader support. Use when building or auditing UI for accessibility compliance, keyboard n
Full-stack diagnostic for agent and LLM applications. Audits the 12-layer agent stack for wrapper regression, memory pollution, tool discipline failures, hidden repair loops, and rendering corruption. Produces severity-ranked findings with code-first fixes. Essential for developers building agent ap
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression.
Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates. Use when defining or revising an agent's tool set, action space, or observation format.
Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails and you need a reproducible diagnosis instead of a retry.
Add x402 payment execution to AI agents with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets. Supports Base through agentwallet-sdk, X Layer through OKX Payments / OKX Agent Payments Protocol, and Solana plus multi-network EVM through the upstream x402 packages with facilitator-based
Verify a local agent API, temporary gateway tunnel, and remote sandbox callback with a tool-free task, then restore the original app connection.
Security hardening guidance for AI agent frameworks that process untrusted content, invoke tools, write workspace files, manage runtime identifiers, or handle credentials. Use when building or reviewing an agent runtime, autonomous worker, tool gateway, memory service, or multi-tenant agent deployme
Related methodology skillsscan passed
Use when asked to review a plan, challenge a proposal, run a CEO review, poke holes in an approach, think bigger about scope, or decide whether to expand or reduce the plan.
This skill should be used when the user wants to "create a skill", "add a skill to plugin", "write a new skill", "improve skill description", "organize skill content", or needs guidance on skill structure, progressive disclosure, or skill development best practices for Claude Code plugins.
Reviews a branch, pull request or uncommitted change for the interface problems it introduced or regressed, across accessibility, layout, writing, typography, color and UI.
Guides Stripe integration decisions across development and test environment planning (separate sandboxes vs the shared test mode sandbox), API selection (Checkout Sessions vs PaymentIntents), Connect platform setup (Accounts v2, controller properties), billing/subscriptions, tax and registrations (S
Cloudflare Workers best practices for production applications. Use when writing, reviewing, or configuring Workers.
Generate and evaluate grounded ideas. Use when the user wants ideas, improvements, or surprising directions before choosing one to develop. Not for refining an idea they already have (ce-brainstorm) or judging one already on the table (ce-pov).