/adr-writing

name: adr-writing
description: "Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on \"write the ADR\", \"format as MADR\", \"check ADR quality\", \"mark gaps in ADR\". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr)."

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in draft preamble, scratch notes, or the ADR body) of **≥0** paths under `docs/adrs/` you consulted for related/superseded ADRs, **or** you explicitly record that `docs/adrs/` is missing or empty after checking.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):

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:

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:

* [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.

**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 | |----------