# Engineering Decision Record > Writes and reviews architecture decision records (ADRs): frames the decision as a forced choice, states the options actually considered with their real trade-offs, and records the consequences the team accepts. Use when a technical choice will be expensive to reverse, when a decision keeps being relitigated, when onboarding reveals nobody knows why a component exists, or when reviewing a draft ADR. Trigger on 'write an ADR', 'architecture decision record', 'document this decision', 'why did we choose X', 'we keep re-arguing this'. Not for decisions that are cheap to reverse — record those in the ticket; not for reviewing code that implements an already-accepted decision, which is engineering-code-review. - Skill: `alihusains/engineering-decision-record` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add alihusains/engineering-decision-record` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/alihusains/engineering-decision-record/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Web & Frontend - Author: alihusains (https://skillmd.com/u/alihusains) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/alihusains/engineering-decision-record --- # Architecture decision record ## Purpose Two failures recur. A decision gets made in a meeting, nobody writes down what was rejected, and six months later the team relitigates it with worse information. Or an ADR is written as an advertisement for the chosen option: alternatives listed only to be dismissed, no cost admitted. This skill produces records that survive both — a record whose value is that it tells you what would have to change for the decision to be reversed. ## Prerequisites - **Inputs:** the decision being forced and what triggers it now; the constraints that are genuinely fixed (deadline, existing systems, team skills, regulatory obligation); at least two options that a competent engineer would defend. - **Access:** whoever holds the authority to accept the decision. An ADR nobody can accept is a proposal, and should be labelled Proposed, not Accepted. If only one option exists, this is not a decision — it is a constraint. Record it as context somewhere else and stop. ## Procedure 1. **Write the forcing function first.** One paragraph: what is true now that makes this decision necessary this quarter? "We should think about our database" is not a forcing function. "Write throughput on the primary is at 70% of capacity and growth projects it to 100% within two quarters" is. An ADR without a forcing function is usually premature and will be overtaken. 2. **State the constraints separately from the preferences.** A constraint is something an option must satisfy to be viable; a preference is something that makes an option nicer. Mixing them lets a preference silently eliminate a viable option. Write them as a list where each entry is testable: "must run in our existing region set" is a constraint; "the team likes it" is not. 3. **Describe each option on its own terms, in the same shape.** For each: how it works in two or three sentences, what it costs to build, what it costs to operate, what it makes easy later, what it makes hard later, and who has done it before. If you cannot write the "makes easy later" line for an option you intend to reject, you have not understood it well enough to reject it. 4. **Compare against the constraints, in a table, before stating a choice.** | | Option A | Option B | Option C | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Meets constraint 1 | yes | yes | no | | Meets constraint 2 | yes | partial — needs X | — | | Build cost | weeks | days | — | | Operational cost | new component to run | none | — | | Reversibility | high | low, data migration required | — | Write "partial" honestly. Tables where the chosen option scores best on every row are a signal the criteria were chosen after the decision. 5. **State the decision in one sentence, in active voice, with the accepting authority named by role.** "We will use B, accepted by the platform lead on ." 6. **Write consequences as things that are now true**, not as risks that might materialise. Split into: what this enables, what this now costs us permanently, and what we have given up. The "given up" section is the part readers come back for — an ADR with no costs listed is not trusted. 7. **Record the reversal condition.** What observation would make this decision wrong? ("If write volume exceeds N, B's single-writer model stops working and we revisit.") This is what turns an ADR from history into an operating instrument, and it is the section most often missing. 8. **Assign status and never edit an accepted record in place.** | Status | Meaning | Editable | | --- | --- | --- | | Proposed | Circulated, not yet accepted | Yes | | Accepted | Decision in force | No — only status changes | | Superseded by NNN | A later ADR replaced it | No | | Deprecated | No longer relevant, no replacement | No | Superseding records link both ways. Rewriting an accepted ADR destroys the only record of what the team believed at the time, which is the thing that makes the archive worth reading. 9. **Number sequentially and keep it short.** One decision per record, one to two pages. If the draft exceeds that, it is either two decisions or it contains design detail that belongs in the design doc the ADR points to. ## Failure modes this skill exists to prevent - **The straw-man alternative.** Options listed with only their weaknesses. Test: could an advocate of the rejected option read your description and agree it is fair? If not, rewrite it. - **Retrofitting.** An ADR written after the code shipped, to justify it. Still worth writing, but label the date honestly and record the constraints as they actually were, including "we had already built it". - **Decision without an owner.** No accepting authority named, so the decision is never truly binding and the argument reopens. - **Consequence amnesia.** The permanent operating cost never gets recorded, so the next team inherits a component nobody budgeted for. ## Data handling Classification: **Internal**, and ADRs are frequently read by new joiners and sometimes shared with auditors or partners. Keep vendor pricing under NDA, security control details, and any credentials out of the record — reference them by pointer. Do not include personal data or customer identifiers in examples; use synthetic values. ## Boundaries - The choice is cheap to reverse (a library swap contained in one module) — record it in the pull request; an ADR is overhead. - The decision is about a product feature or scope rather than technical structure — that belongs in a product brief, not here. - The change is already decided and you are assessing its implementation — `engineering-code-review`. - The decision emerged from an outage and remediation actions are being tracked — `engineering-incident-postmortem` owns the actions; the ADR covers only the structural choice one of them implies. ## Hand-offs - **Receives from:** `engineering-incident-postmortem` (a remediation implying an architectural change); `data-analytics-metric-definition` (when a metric contract forces a storage or pipeline decision). - **Routes to:** `engineering-code-review` (the accepted option becomes the reviewer's intent baseline); `it-change-management` when implementing the decision requires a controlled change.