develop-adr
The develop-adr skill generates Architecture Decision Records in the Nygard format, capturing significant technical decisions, their underlying context, and resulting consequences. Use this when establishing architectural choices, selecting technologies, or defining development patterns that require documented rationale for future team members.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills /tmp/develop-adr && cp -r /tmp/develop-adr/skills/develop-adr ~/.claude/skills/develop-adrSKILL.md
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 --> # Architecture Decision Record (ADR) An Architecture Decision Record documents a significant technical decision along with its context and consequences. ADRs capture the "why" behind architectural choices so future team members understand the reasoning - especially important when they question why something was done a particular way. This skill follows Michael Nygard's lightweight ADR format. ## When to Use - Making significant technical decisions that affect system architecture - Choosing between technology options (frameworks, databases, services) - Establishing patterns that future development should follow - Documenting the rationale for constraints or non-obvious approaches - Preserving institutional knowledge about past decisions ## When NOT to Use - The decision is a product or UX design choice, not architecture or technology -> use `develop-design-rationale` - You are still exploring whether an approach is feasible -> time-box the exploration and record it with `develop-spike-summary` first - You need to pitch a solution to stakeholders -> use `develop-solution-brief`; an ADR records a decision, it does not sell one - Nothing is actually being decided (the status quo continues unchanged): an ADR without a decision is noise; wait until there is one ## Instructions When asked to create an ADR, follow these steps: 1. **Assign a Number and Title** ADRs are numbered sequentially (ADR-001, ADR-002, etc.) for easy reference. The title should be a short noun phrase describing the decision, like "Use PostgreSQL for order data" or "Adopt React for frontend." 2. **Set the Status** New ADRs start as "Proposed." After team review, they become "Accepted," "Deprecated," or "Superseded by ADR-XXX." Status changes should be tracked. 3. **Describe the Context** Explain the circumstances that led to this decision. What problem are you solving? What forces are at play (technical constraints, team expertise, timeline, cost)? This section should help a reader who wasn't there understand why this decision was needed. 4. **State the Decision** Clearly articulate what you decided. Use active voice: "We will use..." rather than "It was decided..." Be specific about what is and isn't included in the decision. 5. **Document the Consequences** List the outcomes of this decision - positive, negative, and neutral. Good ADRs are honest about trade-offs. What becomes easier? What becomes harder? What new constraints or options does this create? 6. **Record the Model-Choice Consequences** *(only when the decision selects a model or commits the system to one)* Skip this step entirely otherwise; it is a subsection inside Consequences, not a seventh heading. A model choice differs from an ordinary dependency choice in one way that matters for an ADR: the thing you evaluated will be replaced, often inside the life of this decision. So record what the choice costs to undo, not just which option won. Name whether you are building, buying, or prompting a general model and what ruled the other two out; what is now coupled to the choice (prompts, evaluation sets, output schemas, latency budgets); the operating cost accepted and the volume at which it stops being acceptable; the real reversal cost given that coupling; and the observation that would reopen this ADR, which is a trigger rather than a review date. ## Output Format Use the template in `references/TEMPLATE.md` to structure the output. A complete ADR fills every template section: Status; Context; Decision; Consequences; Alternatives Considered; and References. ## Quality Checklist Before finalizing, verify: - [ ] Title is a short, descriptive noun phrase - [ ] Status is clearly indicated (Proposed/Accepted/Deprecated/Superseded) - [ ] Context explains why this decision was needed - [ ] Decision is stated clearly in active voice - [ ] Consequences include both positive and negative outcomes - [ ] ADR can stand alone without requiring other documents - [ ] If the decision selects or commits to a model: coupling, operating cost, reversal cost, and the observation that would reopen the decision are all recorded ## Examples See `references/EXAMPLE.md` for a completed example.
Run an ad-hoc ordered chain of pm-skills with shared context (ephemeral; routes to the pm-workflow-orchestrator)
Defines a testable hypothesis with clear success metrics and a validation approach. Use when forming assumptions to test or aligning a team on what success looks like, before any experiment is designed. To design the A/B test or experiment that will validate the hypothesis, use measure-experiment-design.
Creates a Jobs to be Done canvas capturing the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of a customer job. Use when deeply understanding customer motivations, designing for jobs, or reframing product positioning.
Creates an opportunity solution tree connecting a desired outcome to customer opportunities and candidate solutions, preventing solution-first jumps in continuous discovery. Use when structuring scattered feature ideas or communicating how the roadmap traces to outcomes. For ranking an existing flat list of candidates, use define-prioritization-framework instead; this skill discovers the list, it does not score one.
Run applicable prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, Kano) against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge across frameworks, and an executive summary with recommendation. Framework applicability is filtered by data availability; Kano requires customer research. Refuses to fabricate scores; produces an estimation scaffold when input data is missing.
Creates a clear problem framing document with user impact, business context, and success criteria. Use when starting a new initiative, realigning a drifted project, or communicating up to leadership.
Generates structured Given/When/Then acceptance criteria for a user story or feature slice, covering the happy path, key failure scenarios, and non-functional expectations in testable form. Use when turning requirements into verifiable scenarios for engineering handoff and QA sign-off. For a dedicated catalog of boundary conditions, error states, and recovery paths across a feature, use deliver-edge-cases; to write the stories themselves, use deliver-user-stories.
Documents edge cases, error states, boundary conditions, race conditions, and recovery paths for a feature - the systematic catalog of what can go wrong and the failure modes to design for. Use during specification to map the failure surface and ensure comprehensive coverage, or during QA planning to identify boundary and limit scenarios to test. Distinct from deliver-acceptance-criteria, which writes story-level Given/When/Then checks; this skill produces the whole-feature edge-case catalog.