Decision Docs

Code shows what you did. It cannot show what you considered and rejected, which constraint forced your hand, or why a workaround exists. That context decays fast — six months later, even you won't remember, and the next person will relitigate a settled question or repeat a mistake you already made.

Decision docs capture why at the moment of choice. They are cheap to write when the reasoning is fresh; they are expensive to reconstruct from git history and Slack.

This skill covers ADRs (immutable decision history), living docs (updated as the system changes), and pointers (short rules that link to the full record). Pair with [[product-brief]] when a RFC produces a decided approach, [[spec-first]] for requirements that precede design choices, [[migration-path]] when a decision implies a staged rollout, [[context-curation]] for where durable "why" should live in agent memory, and [[launch-readiness]] when shipping needs a changelog and communicated risks.

When to Use

• Choosing an architecture, framework, datastore, protocol, auth model, or major pattern
• A trade-off future maintainers will question ("why not Postgres?", "why this cache TTL?")
• A decision that's costly to undo or touches many modules, teams, or deployments
• An RFC or experiment concluded — record what was decided and what was rejected
• A workaround, hack, or "temporary" fix that will outlive the sprint
• Documentation is absent, outdated, or describes a system that no longer exists
• Compliance or audit needs a traceable record of why data is handled a certain way
• The same debate keeps resurfacing in PRs or standups

Skip for trivial choices with no lasting cost — local variable names, one-off scripts, reversible edits with no architectural impact. Don't ADR everything; reserve records for decisions that stick.

Process

Work in order. Not every situation needs a full ADR — step 1 decides the right artifact.

1. Decide what kind of record you need

Write an ADR when reversing the choice would require a migration, affect multiple services, or change a public contract. Skip an ADR when the choice is local, easily reversible, and obvious from the code.

2. Write at decision time — not after shipping

Capture the record while alternatives and constraints are still in your head. After shipping, memory compresses to "we chose X" and loses the rejected options.

Minimum timing:

• Before merge for choices embedded in the PR (new datastore, new auth flow).
• At RFC approval for approaches reviewed in [[product-brief]].
• When adding a workaround — label it temporary in the ADR with an expiry or follow-up task.

If you discover you shipped without recording: write the ADR now, note it's retrospective, and capture what you still remember of the alternatives.

3. Structure an ADR

Keep ADRs short — one to two pages. Long ADRs aren't read.

# ADR-NNN: [Short title in domain language]

- **Status:** Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX
- **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Deciders:** [names or roles]

## Context

What problem or constraint forces a choice? Link to ticket, RFC, incident, or metric.
State facts, not opinions — "p95 checkout latency is 800ms" not "checkout is slow."

## Decision

What we will do — one clear statement. Not a design doc; the choice.

## Options considered

| Option | Pros | Cons | Why not |
|--------|------|------|---------|
| A — … | … | … | … |
| B — … | … | … | **Chosen** / rejected because … |

The rejected options and **why they lost** are the highest-value section. Reviewers and future readers
trust the decision when they see what was weighed.

## Consequences

**Positive:** what we gain.
**Negative:** what we give up — cost, complexity, operational burden, consistency limits.
**Follow-ups:** migrations, monitoring, tech debt tickets, review date for "temporary" choices.

## References

Links to RFC, spike code, benchmark results, compliance requirement.

For product or experiment decisions, the same shape works — replace "architecture" with "product choice" and link success metrics from the brief.

4. Lead with constraints, then the choice

Readers ask "why this?" before "what is it?" Order matters:

1. Problem and constraints — latency budget, team skill, regulatory rule, existing stack.
2. Decision — the choice, stated plainly.
3. Alternatives — what else was on the table.
4. Trade-offs — what the choice costs.

A decision without named trade-offs reads like marketing. Every real choice gives something up — latency for consistency, simplicity for flexibility, cost for speed. Name it.

5. Keep records close to the code

Decision docs belong in version control, beside what they describe:

• docs/adr/0001-use-event-sourcing.md or doc/architecture/decisions/
• Number sequentially; zero-pad (0001) for sort order
• Link ADRs from the relevant README, module doc, or architecture overview
• Never only in wiki/Confluence/Notion without a repo link — those drift and disappear

For pointers in standing agent memory ([[context-curation]]):

<!-- Good: short rule + link -->
API errors use `ApiError` in `lib/errors.ts` — see ADR-012 (no raw string throws).

<!-- Bad: full ADR pasted into CLAUDE.md -->

6. Treat ADRs as immutable history

Once Accepted, do not edit the body to reflect new reality. The ADR is a record of what was decided then.

When the decision changes:

1. Write a new ADR with the new choice.
2. Set old ADR status to Superseded by ADR-XXX.
3. Update living docs and pointers to reference the new ADR.
4. Execute the migration ([[migration-path]]) — code, data, and docs move together.

Editing old ADRs hides evolution and makes audits unreliable. Superseding preserves the trail.

7. Document what code cannot say

Write in ADRs and living docs:

• Why a workaround exists and when to remove it
• Non-obvious setup steps ("needs this env var because…")
• Dragons — race conditions, ordering assumptions, "never call X before Y"
• Rejected approaches that might look tempting later
• Ownership boundaries between services or modules
• Retention, PII, and compliance constraints ([[hardening]], [[data-modeling]])

Do not write:

• Narration of what the code already shows (getUser fetches the user)
• Copy-pasted function signatures that live in types
• Docs that duplicate a skill's process — link the skill instead

Code comments are for local non-obvious mechanics at the line level. ADRs are for choices that span files and years. Don't put a novel in a comment; don't put line logic in an ADR.

8. Maintain living docs — prune stale ones

Living docs (README, docs/architecture.md, setup guides) describe current state. Unlike ADRs, they must be updated when the system changes.

When you touch an area:

• If the doc describes behavior that no longer exists → fix or delete it
• If a section is wrong → fix it in the same PR as the code change
• If nobody knows if it's true → verify against code ([[source-first]]) then fix
• If the doc repeats an ADR → shorten to a pointer

Wrong docs are worse than none. They send people down rabbit holes. A missing doc prompts questions; a wrong doc prompts confident mistakes.

Audit triggers:

• Onboarding feedback ("the docs said X but…")
• Repeated questions in PRs about the same topic
• A major migration or deprecation shipped without doc updates

9. Link decisions into the workflow

Decisions should be findable when they matter:

10. Scenario playbooks

Tech selection (database, queue, framework)

• Spike or benchmark if options are close; put numbers in the ADR.
• Document operational cost — not just dev ergonomics.
• Record who maintains it and what happens at 10× scale.

Temporary workaround

• ADR with Status: Accepted (temporary) and a review date or removal ticket.
• Code comment points to ADR number.
• If the workaround survives two review dates, either promote it to intentional design or fund the fix.

RFC → shipped decision

• RFC is the discussion artifact; ADR is the compact outcome.
• Don't let the RFC be the only record — RFCs are long and get stale.

Recurring "why not X?" in PRs

• Write or resurrect the ADR; link it in the PR template or module README.
• Close the debate with documented trade-offs, not repeated opinions.

Experiment / product choice

• Record: hypothesis, metric, result, decision (ship / don't ship / iterate).
• Link from [[product-brief]] success metrics.

Compliance and audit

• ADR states which requirement drove the design (retention period, encryption, access model).
• Enough for an auditor to trace requirement → decision → implementation without reading code.

Onboarding a new area

• Living doc: current architecture diagram + pointers to key ADRs.
• New hire reads current state first, then ADRs for history — not the reverse.

Common Rationalizations

• "The code is self-documenting." — Code documents what, never the why or the roads not taken.
• "I'll remember why." — You won't, and the next person never knew.
• "Docs always go stale." — ADRs are dated history that stays valid; living docs get updated in the same PR as code.
• "It's obvious." — Obvious to you today, with all the context you're about to forget.
• "We discussed it in the RFC/meeting." — Discussion artifacts are long and unsearchable; extract the decision.
• "ADR overhead for a small choice." — Skip the ADR for small choices; don't skip recording significant ones.
• "I'll add a comment in the PR." — PRs merge and disappear; ADRs persist and link.
• "Wiki is fine." — Wiki without repo links drifts; version-controlled docs travel with the code.
• "We'll update the docs later." — Later never comes; wrong docs ship alongside wrong assumptions.

Red Flags

• A major architectural choice with no record of why
• The same debate resurfacing every quarter — no ADR to settle it
• Docs describe a version of the system that no longer exists
• Editing past ADRs in place instead of superseding
• Comments/docs that restate the code instead of explaining intent
• Workarounds with no ticket, no ADR, and no review date
• RFC approved but no compact decision record extracted
• CLAUDE.md or rules bloated with full decision prose instead of pointers
• Compliance-sensitive handling with no traceable rationale
• Changelog or user docs missing for a user-visible decision ([[launch-readiness]])
• Postmortem action "fix architecture" with no ADR or migration plan

Verification

• [ ] Significance assessed — ADR for sticky choices; skipped for trivial reversible edits
• [ ] Record written at decision time (or retrospective ADR with noted gaps)
• [ ] ADR has context, decision, options considered, consequences, and references
• [ ] Rejected alternatives and trade-offs explicit — not only the chosen path
• [ ] ADR lives in version control with sequential numbering; linked from README or module docs
• [ ] Old ADRs superseded, not edited, when decisions change
• [ ] Living docs updated in the same PR as behavioral code changes
• [ ] Stale or wrong docs fixed or removed — not left to mislead
• [ ] Workarounds have ADR or ticket with review/removal date; code points to record
• [ ] Pointers in agent memory are short and link to ADRs ([[context-curation]])
• [ ] RFC/experiment outcomes captured in a durable decision record
• [ ] Launch changelog and user-facing docs updated when the decision is user-visible
• [ ] Compliance or audit-sensitive choices traceable to requirement and implementation