jiaxiaojunqaq/skillject/technical-decision-record

<framework_overview>

What This Is

A structured approach to documenting technical decisions using ADRs (Architecture Decision Records). Ensures decisions are traceable, well-reasoned, and understood by the team.

When to Use

• Choosing between technologies or frameworks
• Making architectural changes
• Selecting third-party services
• Changing established patterns
• Any decision you'd want to reference later

</framework_overview>

<principles>

Core Philosophy

1. DECISIONS ARE IMMUTABLE HISTORY

Once made, an ADR is never modified—only superseded. This preserves the reasoning at the time, even if context changes later.

2. CONTEXT OVER CONCLUSION

The "why" is more valuable than the "what." Future readers need to understand the constraints, options, and trade-offs that led to the decision.

3. BIAS TOWARD REVERSIBILITY

Prefer decisions that can be changed later. Document the reversal cost for irreversible choices.

4. EXPLICIT OVER IMPLICIT

If it wasn't written down, it wasn't decided. Verbal agreements don't count as architectural decisions.

5. TEAM OVER INDIVIDUAL

Decisions should be reviewed by affected parties. Surprise decisions create resistance. </principles>

<process>

The Process

Step 1: Define the Problem

What are we deciding? Be specific.

• "Which database for user data" not "database stuff"
• Include the trigger: what prompted this decision?

Step 2: List Constraints

What limits our options?

• Technical: performance, scalability, existing stack
• Business: budget, timeline, team skills
• Compliance: security, regulatory, data residency

Step 3: Enumerate Options

List 2-4 real options. For each:

• Brief description
• Pros (what it does well)
• Cons (what it does poorly)
• Estimated cost/effort

Step 4: Make the Decision

Choose one option. State it clearly.

• "We will use [X]"
• Include who made the decision and when

Step 5: Document Consequences

What follows from this decision?

• Positive: benefits we expect
• Negative: costs we accept
• Risks: what could go wrong
• Reversibility: how hard to change later

</process>

<templates>

ADR Template

# ADR-[NUMBER]: [TITLE]
 
**Status**: [Proposed | Accepted | Superseded by ADR-X]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Deciders**: [Names]
 
## Context
 
[What is the issue? What prompted this decision?]
 
## Constraints
 
-[Constraint 1]
-[Constraint 2]
-[Constraint 3]
 
## Options Considered
 
### Option 1: [Name]
[Description]
-Pros: [...]
-Cons: [...]
 
### Option 2: [Name]
[Description]
-Pros: [...]
-Cons: [...]
 
### Option 3: [Name]
[Description]
-Pros: [...]
-Cons: [...]
 
## Decision
 
We will use **[Option X]**.
 
[Reasoning: Why this option over others?]
 
## Consequences
 
### Positive
-[Benefit 1]
-[Benefit 2]
 
### Negative
-[Cost 1]
-[Cost 2]
 
### Risks
-[Risk 1]: [Mitigation]
-[Risk 2]: [Mitigation]
 
### Reversibility
[Easy | Moderate | Difficult | Irreversible]
[Explanation of what reversal would require]

</templates>

<anti-patterns>

Common Mistakes

1. DECIDING WITHOUT OPTIONS

Making a decision without exploring alternatives is not a decision—it's a default.

Why it's wrong: You can't justify a choice without knowing what you chose against. Instead: Always list at least 2 options, even if one is "do nothing."

2. BIKESHEDDING

Spending more time on reversible decisions than irreversible ones.

Why it's wrong: Time spent on low-stakes decisions is time not spent on high-stakes ones. Instead: Match deliberation time to reversibility. Irreversible = more process.

3. HIDDEN STAKEHOLDERS

Making decisions that affect teams without involving them.

Why it's wrong: Creates surprise, resistance, and rework. Instead: List affected parties in "Deciders" and get explicit sign-off.

4. REVISION INSTEAD OF SUPERSESSION

Editing old ADRs when context changes.

Why it's wrong: Loses the historical record of why decisions were made. Instead: Create a new ADR that supersedes the old one, referencing the original. </anti-patterns>

<intake> What technical decision are you working on?

1. What's being decided?

• Technology choice
• Architectural pattern
• Third-party service
• Process change
• Other: ___

1. What triggered this decision?

• New requirement
• Performance issue
• Technical debt
• Team change
• Other: ___

1. How reversible should this be?

• Easy to change (experiment)
• Moderate effort to change
• Significant investment
• Hard to reverse (commit carefully)

I'll help you structure the ADR based on your answers. </intake>