生成ADR

write-adr

by anderskev

Generate ADRs from decisions made in the current session. Extracts decisions, confirms with user, writes MADR-formatted documents.

4.5k内容与创意未扫描2026年4月6日

安装

claude skill add --url https://github.com/openclaw/skills

文档

Write ADR

Generate Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) from decisions made during the current session.

Workflow Overview

  1. Context - Gather repository context and existing ADRs
  2. Extract - Analyze conversation for decisions using a subagent
  3. Confirm - Present decisions to user for selection
  4. Write - Generate ADRs in parallel using subagents
  5. Report - Summarize created files and status
  6. Verify - Validate generated ADRs against Definition of Done

Step 1: Gather Context

bash
# Get current branch and recent commits
git branch --show-current
git log --oneline -5

# Check for existing ADRs
ls docs/adrs/ 2>/dev/null || echo "No ADR directory found"

# Count existing ADRs for numbering
find docs/adrs -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l

This context helps the ADR writer:

  • Reference related commits in the ADR
  • Avoid duplicate ADRs for already-documented decisions
  • Determine correct sequence numbering

Step 2: Extract Decisions

Launch a subagent to analyze the current conversation for architectural decisions:

text
Task(
  description: "Analyze conversation and extract architectural decisions",
  model: "sonnet",
  prompt: |
    Load the skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:adr-decision-extraction")

    Analyze the conversation for decisions that warrant ADRs:
    - Technology choices, architecture patterns, design trade-offs
    - Rejected alternatives, significant implementation approaches

    Return JSON:
    {
      "decisions": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "title": "Use PostgreSQL for primary datastore",
          "context": "Brief context about why this came up",
          "decision": "What was decided",
          "alternatives": ["What was considered but rejected"],
          "rationale": "Why this choice was made"
        }
      ]
    }
)

If the subagent returns an empty decisions array, skip to Step 5 with message: "No architectural decisions detected in this session."

Step 3: Confirm with User

Display all extracted decisions with full details, then ask user to select:

text
## Detected Decisions

### 1. Use PostgreSQL for primary datastore
**Confidence:** high

**Problem:** Need ACID transactions for financial records

**Decision:** PostgreSQL for user data storage

**Alternatives discussed:**
- MongoDB
- SQLite

**Rationale:** ACID compliance, team familiarity, mature ecosystem

**Source:** Discussion about database selection in planning phase

---

### 2. Implement event sourcing for audit trail
**Confidence:** medium

**Problem:** Compliance requires complete audit history

**Decision:** Event sourcing pattern for state changes

**Alternatives discussed:**
- Database triggers
- Application-level logging

**Rationale:** Immutable audit trail, temporal queries, debugging capability

**Source:** Compliance requirements discussion

---

## Selection

Which decisions should I write ADRs for?
- Enter numbers (e.g., "1,2" or "1-2"), "all", or "none" to skip

Important: Always display the full decision details (problem, decision, alternatives, rationale) from the extraction output BEFORE asking for selection. Do not truncate to just title and context.

Parse user response:

  • "all" - Process all decisions
  • "none" or empty - Skip with message "No ADRs will be created."
  • "1,2" or "1-2" - Process specified decisions

Step 4: Write ADRs (Parallel)

Pre-allocate ADR numbers before launching subagents to prevent numbering conflicts:

bash
# Pre-allocate numbers for all confirmed decisions
# Example: If user selected 3 decisions
python skills/adr-writing/scripts/next_adr_number.py --count 3
# Output:
# 0003
# 0004
# 0005

Assign each pre-allocated number to its corresponding decision before launching subagents.

For each confirmed decision, launch an ADR Writer subagent in background with its pre-assigned number:

text
Task(
  description: "Write ADR for: {decision.title}",
  model: "sonnet",
  run_in_background: true,
  prompt: |
    Load the skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:adr-writing")

    Write an ADR for this decision:
    ```json
    {decision JSON}
    ```

    **IMPORTANT: Use this pre-assigned ADR number: {assigned_number}**

    Instructions:
    1. Explore codebase for additional context
    2. Write MADR-formatted ADR to docs/adr/
    3. Use the pre-assigned number {assigned_number} - DO NOT call next_adr_number.py
    4. Filename format: {assigned_number}-slugified-title.md
    5. Return created file path
)

Critical: Pass the pre-allocated number to each subagent. Subagents must NOT call next_adr_number.py themselves - this causes duplicate numbers when running in parallel.

All subagents run in parallel. Wait for all to complete before proceeding.

Step 5: Report Results

Collect outputs from all subagents and present summary:

markdown
## ADR Generation Complete

| File | Decision | Status |
|------|----------|--------|
| docs/adr/0003-use-postgresql.md | Use PostgreSQL for primary datastore | Draft |

### Next Steps
- Review generated ADRs for accuracy
- Update status from "proposed" to "accepted" when finalized

### Gaps Requiring Investigation
- [List any decisions where subagent noted missing context]

If no decisions were processed:

text
No ADRs were created. Run this command again after making architectural decisions.

Step 6: Verify Generated ADRs

For each created ADR, validate against Definition of Done:

markdown
## Verification Checklist

| ADR | E | C | A | D | R | Status |
|-----|---|---|---|---|---|--------|
| 0003-use-postgresql.md | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ⚠ | ✗ | Incomplete |

Legend: E=Evidence, C=Criteria, A=Agreement, D=Documentation, R=Realization

Verification steps:

  1. Open each generated ADR file
  2. Confirm filename follows NNNN-slugified-title.md pattern
  3. Verify YAML frontmatter exists at file start:
    • File MUST begin with ---
    • Contains status: draft (or valid status)
    • Contains date: YYYY-MM-DD (actual date)
    • Ends with --- before title
    • If frontmatter is missing, add it immediately
  4. Review for [INVESTIGATE] prompts - these need follow-up
  5. Verify at least 2 alternatives are documented
  6. Confirm consequences section has both Good and Bad items

If gaps exist:

  • Keep status as draft until gaps are resolved
  • Use [INVESTIGATE] prompts to guide follow-up session
  • Schedule review with stakeholders before changing to accepted

Output Location

ADRs are written to docs/adr/. If no ADR directory exists, create it with an initial 0000-use-madr.md template record.

MADR Format Reference

markdown
---
status: draft
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# {TITLE}

## Context and Problem Statement

{What is the issue motivating this decision?}

## Decision Drivers

* {driver 1}
* {driver 2}

## Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "{option}", because {reason}.

### Consequences

* Good, because {positive}
* Bad, because {negative}

相关 Skills

文档共著

by anthropics

Universal
热门

围绕文档、提案、技术规格、决策记录等写作任务,按上下文收集、结构迭代、读者测试三步协作共创,减少信息遗漏,写出更清晰、经得起他人阅读的内容。

写文档、方案或技术规格时容易思路散、信息漏,它用结构化共著流程帮你高效传递上下文、反复打磨内容,还能从读者视角做验证。

内容与创意
未扫描149.6k

内部沟通

by anthropics

Universal
热门

按公司常用模板和语气快速起草内部沟通内容,覆盖 3P 更新、状态报告、领导汇报、项目进展、事故复盘、FAQ 与 newsletter,适合需要统一格式的团队沟通场景。

按公司偏好的模板快速产出状态汇报、领导更新和 FAQ,既省去反复改稿,也让内部沟通更统一、更专业。

内容与创意
未扫描149.6k

平面设计

by anthropics

Universal
热门

先生成视觉哲学,再落地成原创海报、艺术画面或其他静态设计,输出 .png/.pdf,强调构图、色彩与空间表达,适合需要高完成度视觉成品的场景。

做海报、插画或静态视觉稿时,用它能快速产出兼顾美感与版式的PNG/PDF成品,原创设计更省心,也更适合规避版权风险。

内容与创意
未扫描149.6k

相关 MCP 服务

免费的加密新闻聚合 MCP,汇集 Bitcoin、Ethereum、DeFi、Solana 与 altcoins 资讯源。

内容与创意
236

by ProfessionalWiki

让 Large Language Model 客户端无缝连接任意 MediaWiki 站点,可创建、更新、搜索页面,并通过 OAuth 2.0 安全管理内容。

内容与创意16 个工具
97

用于Adobe Photoshop自动化的MCP server,让AI assistants直接控制Photoshop。

内容与创意
97

评论