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

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):

python scripts/next_adr_number.py

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

For parallel allocation (used by parent commands):

python scripts/next_adr_number.py --count 3

Outputs: 0003, 0004, 0005 (one per line)

Step 2: Explore Context

Before writing, gather additional context:

• Related code - Find implementations affected by this decision

• Existing ADRs - Check docs/adrs/ for related or superseded decisions

• Discussion sources - PRs, issues, or documents referenced in decision

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:

• Explicit problem statement

• Comprehensive options analysis

• Actionable decision

• Documented consequences

• Reviewable by stakeholders

Step 6: Mark Gaps

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

• [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:

status: draft date: YYYY-MM-DD

Full frontmatter template:

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.

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:

• Starts with --- on the first line

• Contains status: draft (or other valid status)

• Contains date: YYYY-MM-DD with actual date

• 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

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