adr-writing

What this skill does

# ADR Writing

## Overview

Generate Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) following the MADR template with systematic completeness checking.

## Quick Reference

```
┌─────────────┐     ┌──────────────┐     ┌─────────────┐
│  SEQUENCE   │ ──▶ │   EXPLORE    │ ──▶ │    FILL     │
│  (get next  │     │  (context,   │     │  (template  │
│   number)   │     │   ADRs)      │     │   sections) │
└─────────────┘     └──────────────┘     └─────────────┘
       │                                        │
       │                                        ▼
       │                                 ┌─────────────┐
       │                                 │   VERIFY    │
       │                                 │  (DoD       │
       └─────────────────────────────────│   checklist)│
                                         └─────────────┘
```

## When To Use

- Documenting architectural decisions from extracted requirements
- Converting meeting notes or discussions to formal ADRs
- Recording technical choices from PR discussions
- Creating decision records from design documents

## Workflow

### Gates (objective pass conditions)

Advance to the next step only when the **pass condition** holds. These replace “I explored” / “I verified” with checkable artifacts.

| After | Pass condition |
|-------|----------------|
| Step 2 | **Pass:** You have a written list (bullets in draft preamble, scratch notes, or the ADR body) of **≥0** paths under `docs/adrs/` you consulted for related/superseded ADRs, **or** you explicitly record that `docs/adrs/` is missing or empty after checking. **And** you list **≥1** repo path for related code **or** `N/A` with one-line reason. |
| Step 5 | **Pass:** For each E, C, A, D, R in `references/definition-of-done.md`, the draft either meets that letter’s checklist **or** contains an `[INVESTIGATE: …]` marker scoped to that gap. |
| Step 7 | **Pass:** The ADR file exists at `docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md`, and a read of the file shows line 1 is `---` and frontmatter parses as YAML. |

### Step 1: Get Sequence Number

**If a number was pre-assigned** (e.g., when called from `/beagle:write-adr` with parallel writes):
- Use the pre-assigned number directly
- Do NOT call the script - this prevents duplicate numbers in parallel execution

**If no number was pre-assigned** (standalone use):
```bash
python scripts/next_adr_number.py
```

This outputs the next available ADR number (e.g., `0003`).

For parallel allocation (used by parent commands):
```bash
python scripts/next_adr_number.py --count 3
# Outputs: 0003, 0004, 0005 (one per line)
```

### Step 2: Explore Context

Before writing, gather additional context:

1. **Related code** - Find implementations affected by this decision
2. **Existing ADRs** - Check `docs/adrs/` for related or superseded decisions
3. **Discussion sources** - PRs, issues, or documents referenced in decision

**Gate:** Meet the Step 2 row in **Gates (objective pass conditions)** before Step 3.

### Step 3: Load Template

Load `references/madr-template.md` for the official MADR structure.

### Step 4: Fill Sections

Populate each section from your decision data:

| Section | Source |
|---------|--------|
| Title | Decision summary (imperative mood) |
| Status | Always `draft` initially |
| Context | Problem statement, constraints |
| Decision Drivers | Prioritized requirements |
| Considered Options | All viable alternatives |
| Decision Outcome | Chosen option with rationale |
| Consequences | Good, bad, neutral impacts |

### Step 5: Apply Definition of Done

Load `references/definition-of-done.md` and verify E.C.A.D.R. criteria:

- **E**xplicit problem statement
- **C**omprehensive options analysis
- **A**ctionable decision
- **D**ocumented consequences
- **R**eviewable by stakeholders

**Gate:** Meet the Step 5 row in **Gates (objective pass conditions)** before Step 6 (use `[INVESTIGATE: …]` where data is missing).

### Step 6: Mark Gaps

For sections that cannot be filled from available data, insert investigation prompts:

```markdown
* [INVESTIGATE: Review PR #42 discussion for additional drivers]
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm with security team on compliance requirements]
* [INVESTIGATE: Benchmark performance of Option 2 vs Option 3]
```

These prompts signal incomplete sections for later follow-up.

### Step 7: Write File

**IMPORTANT: Every ADR MUST start with YAML frontmatter.**

The frontmatter block is REQUIRED and must include at minimum:
```yaml
---
status: draft
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---
```

Full frontmatter template:
```yaml
---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
consulted: []
informed: []
---
```

**Validation:** Before writing the file, verify the content starts with `---` followed by valid YAML frontmatter. If frontmatter is missing, add it before writing.

**Gate:** After write, meet the Step 7 row in **Gates (objective pass conditions)** (file on disk, YAML frontmatter present).

Save to `docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md`:

```
docs/adrs/0003-use-postgresql-for-user-data.md
docs/adrs/0004-adopt-event-sourcing-pattern.md
docs/adrs/0005-migrate-to-kubernetes.md
```

### Step 8: Verify Frontmatter

After writing, confirm the file:
1. Starts with `---` on the first line
2. Contains `status: draft` (or other valid status)
3. Contains `date: YYYY-MM-DD` with actual date
4. Ends frontmatter with `---` before the title

## File Naming Convention

Format: `NNNN-slugified-title.md`

| Component | Rule |
|-----------|------|
| `NNNN` | Zero-padded sequence number from script |
| `-` | Separator |
| `slugified-title` | Lowercase, hyphens, no special characters |
| `.md` | Markdown extension |

## Reference Files

- `references/madr-template.md` - Official MADR template structure
- `references/definition-of-done.md` - E.C.A.D.R. quality criteria

## Output Example

```markdown
---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
---

# Use PostgreSQL for User Data Storage

## Context and Problem Statement

We need a database for user account data...

## Decision Drivers

* Data integrity requirements
* Query flexibility needs
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm scaling projections with infrastructure team]

## Considered Options

* PostgreSQL
* MongoDB
* CockroachDB

## Decision Outcome

Chosen option: PostgreSQL, because...

## Consequences

### Good

* ACID compliance ensures data integrity

### Bad

* Requires more upfront schema design

### Neutral

* Team has moderate PostgreSQL experience
```