How do I install the Adr Reviewer skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add harumiweb/adr-reviewer in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Adr Reviewer safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Adr Reviewer?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Adr Reviewer free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Adr Reviewer?

harumiWeb (@harumiweb) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Adr Reviewer by harumiweb — Agent Skill

Name: Adr Reviewer
Author: harumiWeb

Adr Reviewer

Review an ExStruct ADR draft for decision quality, overlap with existing ADRs and specs, evidence strength, rollout risk, and human-ownership escalations. Use only after adr-linter reports no unresolved high/medium findings on the current draft, and when you need design-review findings before merge or handoff.

harumiWeb 46f00fd 2 files · 2.7 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

ADR Reviewer

Review the policy decision, not just the document shape.

Read

dev-docs/agents/adr-governance.md
dev-docs/agents/adr-criteria.md
dev-docs/agents/adr-workflow.md
dev-docs/specs/adr-review.md
The target ADR draft
Related ADRs, relevant public docs under docs/ when public API / CLI / MCP contracts are in scope, internal specs, tests, src paths, and issue / PR context
Existing adr-linter findings for the current draft

Workflow

Confirm the current draft has no unresolved adr-linter high / medium findings. Only proceed with design review after that precondition is met.
Read the ADR draft and identify the single policy question it is trying to resolve.
Check whether the draft overlaps with, contradicts, or should supersede an existing ADR or spec.
Verify that the cited Tests, Code, and Related specs actually support the claims being made, and include relevant public docs/ pages in scope when the ADR touches public API / CLI / MCP contracts.
Review whether compatibility, rollout, fallback, migration, or safety consequences are covered when relevant.
Detect human-owned decisions that AI should not settle, including public API break judgment, security or license calls, major directory reorganization, or unresolved product/spec direction.
Return one verdict:
- ready
- revise
- escalate

Output Contract

Return findings first, ordered by severity, and include:

verdict
scope
- draft
- related ADRs
- public docs
- specs
- src
- tests
- issue / PR context
findings

Each finding should include:

type
- decision-gap
- scope-conflict
- evidence-risk
- rollout-gap
- ownership-escalation
severity
summary
why it matters
suggested revision
evidence
- draft
- related sources

Also include top-level:

open questions
residual risks

Do not silently rewrite the ADR text. If the review hits a human-owned decision, return escalate instead of inventing a final policy.

---name: adr-reviewerdescription: Review an ExStruct ADR draft for decision quality, overlap with existing ADRs and specs, evidence strength, rollout risk, and human-ownership escalations. Use only after adr-linter reports no unresolved high/medium findings on the current draft, and when you need design-review findings before merge or handoff.---# ADR ReviewerReview the policy decision, not just the document shape.## Read1. `dev-docs/agents/adr-governance.md`2. `dev-docs/agents/adr-criteria.md`3. `dev-docs/agents/adr-workflow.md`4. `dev-docs/specs/adr-review.md`5. The target ADR draft6. Related ADRs, relevant public docs under `docs/` when public API / CLI / MCP contracts are in scope, internal specs, tests, src paths, and issue / PR context7. Existing `adr-linter` findings for the current draft## Workflow1. Confirm the current draft has no unresolved `adr-linter` `high` / `medium` findings. Only proceed with design review after that precondition is met.2. Read the ADR draft and identify the single policy question it is trying to resolve.3. Check whether the draft overlaps with, contradicts, or should supersede an existing ADR or spec.4. Verify that the cited `Tests`, `Code`, and `Related specs` actually support the claims being made, and include relevant public `docs/` pages in scope when the ADR touches public API / CLI / MCP contracts.5. Review whether compatibility, rollout, fallback, migration, or safety consequences are covered when relevant.6. Detect human-owned decisions that AI should not settle, including public API break judgment, security or license calls, major directory reorganization, or unresolved product/spec direction.7. Return one verdict: - `ready` - `revise` - `escalate`## Output ContractReturn findings first, ordered by severity, and include:- `verdict`- `scope` - `draft` - `related ADRs` - `public docs` - `specs` - `src` - `tests` - `issue / PR context`- `findings`Each finding should include:- `type` - `decision-gap` - `scope-conflict` - `evidence-risk` - `rollout-gap` - `ownership-escalation`- `severity`- `summary`- `why it matters`- `suggested revision`- `evidence` - `draft` - `related sources`Also include top-level:- `open questions`- `residual risks`Do not silently rewrite the ADR text. If the review hits a human-owned decision, return `escalate` instead of inventing a final policy.

Frequently asked questions