recording-decisions
Use when a decision needs recording - an ADR, a decision log entry, or when someone asks to write down why something was chosen, rejected, or superseded. Encodes the ADR and decision-log formats. Use whenever a choice was made that would otherwise live only in chat, even if nobody says "ADR".
Works with
--- name: recording-decisions description: Use when a decision needs recording - an ADR, a decision log entry, or when someone asks to write down why something was chosen, rejected, or superseded. Encodes the ADR and decision-log formats. Use whenever a choice was made that would otherwise live only in chat, even if nobody says "ADR". license: MIT --- # Recording decisions **REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** the `technical-writing` skill (hard rules, truth rules, style). ## Overview Two formats, by weight. A full ADR for a decision with architecture-level consequences; a decision log entry for the running stream of smaller choices. Both are append-only: an accepted decision is immutable, and new context is a new entry that supersedes the old one. ## When to invoke, and not Invoke when a choice has been made and needs recording, when someone asks "write down why we did this", or when an existing decision is superseded. Do NOT invoke for a decision still being argued (that is `writing-design-docs`; the Why & What box becomes the ADR once accepted). Also invoke on the signals that an unrecorded decision is passing by: "we decided X instead of Y", "let's just go with", a trade-off resolved in a PR comment or chat thread, or a rationale someone has now explained twice. Each of those is a decision living in a non-durable place; offer to record it. Record the decision before citing it. A chat session is not a durable source. Put the dated substance in the log and quote the decider where wording matters, then commit the entry before citing it. Record the smallest complete decision, not a transcript. ## ADR Nygard format. One decision per ADR. ```markdown # ADR-[number]: [short title of the decision] | | | |---|---| | **Status** | Proposed / Accepted / Superseded by ADR-XXX | | **Date** | YYYY-MM-DD | | **Deciders** | [who took part] | ## Context [The forces at play: technical, organizational, political. What must be solved. Factual, without giving away the decision.] ## Decision [What was decided. Active voice: "We release on tags", not "it was decided that".] ## Consequences **Positive:** [what gets easier] **Negative:** [what gets harder, which trade we accept] **Neutral:** [what changes without being better or worse] ## Alternatives considered **[Alternative]** - For: [...] Against: [...] Why not chosen: [...] ## References [Evidence, related decisions, measurements] ``` **Negative is mandatory and may not be empty.** A decision without downsides is a decision that was not thought through. Each alternative carries its strongest argument for; a rejection without it is a strawman. The format implies three edge rules worth stating. The sole permitted edit to an accepted ADR is its Status line gaining "Superseded by ADR-XXX". An objection raised but never answered goes in at full strength as a negative consequence with a named owner: the writer never invents a rebuttal and never withholds a decision its owner has declared. Names unknown at writing time are marked fill-before-filing, because a filed record carries real people. ## Decision log (lightweight) For the running log a full ADR would kill. Cheap enough to maintain: ```markdown ## YYYY-MM-DD ### [Decision stated as an imperative sentence] [One paragraph: the rule.] Why: - [reason] - [reason] Instead of: [rejected option] - [why not] ``` The decision-as-title reads well in a table of contents. Recording the rejected option and the reason is what makes the entry worth revisiting. ## Rules - Append-only. A wrong entry gets a new dated entry that supersedes it, never an edit. Convert relative dates to absolute. - Record the why, not only the what. Rationale is the part git history cannot reconstruct. - When a written rule and shipped reality have diverged, record which one the team intended. An unowned topic is how the wrong document gets cited as authority: every doctrine document states what it owns and what it leaves to others. - Scope guard at the top when a sibling could overlap: "product ideas live in ROADMAP.md; this file is for engineering decisions." - Capture negative results and unknowns explicitly: "four theories, four disproved, cause not found" is a result. A search returning nothing is a result.
More General & Other skills
find-skills
vercel-labs/skills
Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.
grill-me
mattpocock/skills
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
grill-with-docs
mattpocock/skills
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.

