Decision Log Skill

Purpose

To transform implicit decisions into explicit records. This skill ensures every significant technical choice is documented with context, alternatives, and consequences—preventing "tribal knowledge" loss and enabling future maintainers to understand the "why" behind the "what."

ROI Metric: Spending 10 minutes documenting a decision saves hours of debate and prevents costly reversals months later.

When to Use

•Trigger: When architect recommends a technology, pattern, or structural change.
•Trigger: When a decision has >1 viable alternative.
•Trigger: When a decision is hard to reverse (high consequence).
•Trigger: When pm-agent flags a decision as "architecturally significant."

The ADR Protocol (The 5-Step Process)

1. Recognition (Is This Significant?)

Ask: Does this decision impact any of the following?

•Technology stack (language, framework, database)
•Architecture style (microservices vs monolith, REST vs GraphQL)
•Infrastructure (cloud provider, containerization, serverless)
•Security model (auth strategy, encryption approach)
•Data strategy (storage, caching, messaging)
•Team workflow (CI/CD, branching strategy, code review)

If YES → Create an ADR
If NO → Document briefly in code comments

2. Context (Why Are We Doing This?)

Document the forces at play:

•Business requirements (scale, compliance, time-to-market)
•Technical constraints (legacy systems, team expertise)
•Quality attributes (performance, security, maintainability)

3. Decision (What Did We Choose?)

State the decision clearly:

•Chosen option with version/variant
•Configuration details
•Scope (what's in, what's out)

4. Alternatives (What Else Did We Consider?)

Document at least 2-3 alternatives:

•Option name and brief description
•Pros and cons
•Why it was rejected (be honest: "team familiarity," "cost," "risk")

5. Consequences (What Happens Now?)

List the implications:

•Positive: Benefits we gain
•Negative: Trade-offs we accept
•Neutral: Changes to workflows or expectations
•Risks: What could go wrong
•Migration: Path from current state to new state

ADR Template

markdown

# ADR-[NUMBER]: [Short Title]

## Status
- Proposed
- Accepted
- Deprecated (replaced by ADR-XXX)
- Superseded by ADR-XXX

## Context

[The problem statement. What is the issue we're addressing? What forces are at play?]

[Example: We need to choose a database for our user service. The service must handle 10k writes/second with ACID compliance. Team has Postgres expertise but limited NoSQL experience.]

## Decision

**We will use [TECHNOLOGY/Approach] version [X.Y]**

[Clear, concise statement of the decision.]

### Configuration
- Setting A: Value
- Setting B: Value

### Scope
- **In Scope**: User data, session storage
- **Out of Scope**: Analytics data (see ADR-015)

## Alternatives Considered

### Option 1: [Name]
[Description]

**Pros:**
- Benefit A
- Benefit B

**Cons:**
- Drawback A
- Drawback B

**Decision**: Rejected because [specific reason].

### Option 2: [Name]
[Description]

**Pros:**
- Benefit A
- Benefit B

**Cons:**
- Drawback A
- Drawback B

**Decision**: Rejected because [specific reason].

### Option 3: Status Quo (Do Nothing)
**Decision**: Rejected because [specific reason].

## Consequences

### Positive
- [Benefit 1]
- [Benefit 2]

### Negative / Trade-offs
- [Trade-off 1]
- [Trade-off 2]

### Neutral
- [Change 1]

### Risks
- [Risk 1] → Mitigation: [strategy]
- [Risk 2] → Mitigation: [strategy]

### Migration Path
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Step 3]

## Related Decisions
- Relates to ADR-XXX
- Depends on ADR-YYY
- Supersedes ADR-ZZZ

## Notes
- **Decision Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Decision Makers**: [Name], [Name]
- **Stakeholders Consulted**: [Team/Individual]

Execution Template

Use this when documenting a decision.

markdown

## 📝 Decision Documentation

### 1. Decision Summary
- **Topic**: [What are we deciding?]
- **Significance**: High/Medium/Low
- **Reversibility**: Easy/Moderate/Difficult

### 2. Context & Forces
- Business driver: [What business need drives this?]
- Technical driver: [What technical need drives this?]
- Constraints: [Time, budget, expertise, legacy]

### 3. Options Analysis

| Option | Pros | Cons | Score (1-10) |
|:-------|:-----|:-----|:------------:|
| Option A | Fast, proven | Expensive | 7 |
| Option B | Cheap, flexible | Unproven | 6 |
| Option C | [Status Quo] | Technical debt | 4 |

### 4. Recommendation
**Chosen**: Option A  
**Rationale**: Best balance of speed and reliability given Q2 deadline. Cost acceptable.

### 5. ADR Status
- [ ] Draft created
- [ ] Reviewed by architect
- [ ] Reviewed by team
- [ ] Accepted
- [ ] Documented in `docs/adr/`

ADR Index Maintenance

Maintain an index file for discoverability:

markdown

# Architecture Decision Records

## Active Decisions
| ADR | Title | Date | Status |
|:----|:------|:-----|:------:|
| 001 | Use PostgreSQL for Core Data | 2026-01-15 | Accepted |
| 002 | Adopt Next.js App Router | 2026-01-20 | Accepted |
| 003 | Implement JWT Authentication | 2026-01-25 | Accepted |

## Deprecated/Superseded
| ADR | Title | Date | Status |
|:----|:------|:-----|:------:|
| 000 | Use MongoDB (pilot) | 2026-01-10 | Superseded by ADR-001 |

Integration with Agents

•architect: Primary user—creates ADRs for all architectural decisions.
•pm-agent: Reviews ADRs for impact on timelines and resources.
•backend / frontend: Reference ADRs when implementing to understand constraints.
•writer: Updates ADRs with implementation details and outcomes.

Storage Location

code

docs/
└── adr/
    ├── README.md           # Index of all ADRs
    ├── 001-use-postgres.md
    ├── 002-nextjs-app-router.md
    └── 003-jwt-auth.md

Or in .opencode/memory/adr/ for agent-centric projects.