architecture-decision-record-9f7ac4 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited architecture-decision-record-9f7ac4 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
This skill produces a complete Architecture Decision Record (ADR) following the Nygard format — the most widely adopted standard. ADRs document the reasoning behind significant technical decisions so future team members understand not just what was decided, but why.
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Status: [Proposed / Accepted / Deprecated / Superseded by ADR-NNN] Author(s): [Name(s)] Deciders: [Who had final say — individual or team]
[3–6 sentences. Describe the situation, constraints, and forces at play that made this decision necessary. Include: the problem being solved, relevant system state, team constraints, timeline pressures, or non-negotiable requirements. Write as if explaining to someone joining the team 18 months from now who has no prior context.]
Key constraints:
For each option, produce:
Description: [What this option is — 1–3 sentences]
Pros:
Cons:
Why this was ruled out (if not chosen): [Honest reason]
We will [chosen option].
[2–4 sentences explaining the decision in plain language. This should be readable in isolation — someone should understand the decision from this paragraph alone without reading the full document.]
[Include if the decision has non-obvious implementation gotchas, or if there are related tickets/RFCs implementers will need. Skip only if the decision is purely tooling selection with no implementation ambiguity.]
[Include unless the decision is permanent or self-evidently final. State a specific trigger condition — e.g. "Review if team grows beyond 20 engineers or traffic exceeds 10M requests/day" — not just "should be reviewed periodically".]
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context reconstruction | Assumes the reader already knows the problem and the pressures | Problem stated, but the forces (team constraints, scale, deadline, forcing event) are missing | A reader two years later could guess the decision from the Context section alone |
| Options honesty | Only the chosen option, or rejected options written as strawmen | ≥2 options, but rejection reasons are circular ("didn't meet requirements") | Every rejected option has genuine strengths and a specific losing constraint tied to a context pressure |
| Consequence balance | All consequences are positive | Token negatives with no operational specifics | Negatives name real debts, new operational burdens, and what must stay true for the decision to hold |
| Revisit triggers | No risks or review conditions stated | "Review periodically" — no measurable condition | Specific, measurable trigger conditions that would invalidate the decision, with an owner |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.