Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From beagle-analysis
Writes Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) using the MADR template and verifies completeness with Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria. Use when documenting architectural decisions from meetings or PR discussions.
npx claudepluginhub existential-birds/beagle --plugin beagle-analysisHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/beagle-analysis:adr-writingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Generate Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) following the MADR template with systematic completeness checking.
Generates Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) by detecting project template conventions, assigning sequential numbers, supporting MADR/Nygard/Alexandrian formats, and saving markdown files. Use for documenting technical decisions.
Generates Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) in MADR, Nygard, Alexandrian, or project formats. Researches directory for conventions, gathers context, numbers sequentially, validates, and saves. Use for documenting technical decisions.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Generate Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) following the MADR template with systematic completeness checking.
┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ SEQUENCE │ ──▶ │ EXPLORE │ ──▶ │ FILL │
│ (get next │ │ (context, │ │ (template │
│ number) │ │ ADRs) │ │ sections) │
└─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └─────────────┘
│ │
│ ▼
│ ┌─────────────┐
│ │ VERIFY │
│ │ (DoD │
└─────────────────────────────────│ checklist)│
└─────────────┘
Advance to the next step only when the pass condition holds. These replace “I explored” / “I verified” with checkable artifacts.
| After | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| Step 2 | Pass: You have a written list (bullets in draft preamble, scratch notes, or the ADR body) of ≥0 paths under docs/adrs/ you consulted for related/superseded ADRs, or you explicitly record that docs/adrs/ is missing or empty after checking. And you list ≥1 repo path for related code or N/A with one-line reason. |
| Step 5 | Pass: For each E, C, A, D, R in references/definition-of-done.md, the draft either meets that letter’s checklist or contains an [INVESTIGATE: …] marker scoped to that gap. |
| Step 7 | Pass: The ADR file exists at docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md, and a read of the file shows line 1 is --- and frontmatter parses as YAML. |
If a number was pre-assigned (e.g., when called from /beagle:write-adr with parallel writes):
If no number was pre-assigned (standalone use):
python scripts/next_adr_number.py
This outputs the next available ADR number (e.g., 0003).
For parallel allocation (used by parent commands):
python scripts/next_adr_number.py --count 3
# Outputs: 0003, 0004, 0005 (one per line)
Before writing, gather additional context:
docs/adrs/ for related or superseded decisionsGate: Meet the Step 2 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) before Step 3.
Load references/madr-template.md for the official MADR structure.
Populate each section from your decision data:
| Section | Source |
|---|---|
| Title | Decision summary (imperative mood) |
| Status | Always draft initially |
| Context | Problem statement, constraints |
| Decision Drivers | Prioritized requirements |
| Considered Options | All viable alternatives |
| Decision Outcome | Chosen option with rationale |
| Consequences | Good, bad, neutral impacts |
Load references/definition-of-done.md and verify E.C.A.D.R. criteria:
Gate: Meet the Step 5 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) before Step 6 (use [INVESTIGATE: …] where data is missing).
For sections that cannot be filled from available data, insert investigation prompts:
* [INVESTIGATE: Review PR #42 discussion for additional drivers]
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm with security team on compliance requirements]
* [INVESTIGATE: Benchmark performance of Option 2 vs Option 3]
These prompts signal incomplete sections for later follow-up.
IMPORTANT: Every ADR MUST start with YAML frontmatter.
The frontmatter block is REQUIRED and must include at minimum:
---
status: draft
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---
Full frontmatter template:
---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
consulted: []
informed: []
---
Validation: Before writing the file, verify the content starts with --- followed by valid YAML frontmatter. If frontmatter is missing, add it before writing.
Gate: After write, meet the Step 7 row in Gates (objective pass conditions) (file on disk, YAML frontmatter present).
Save to docs/adrs/NNNN-slugified-title.md:
docs/adrs/0003-use-postgresql-for-user-data.md
docs/adrs/0004-adopt-event-sourcing-pattern.md
docs/adrs/0005-migrate-to-kubernetes.md
After writing, confirm the file:
--- on the first linestatus: draft (or other valid status)date: YYYY-MM-DD with actual date--- before the titleFormat: NNNN-slugified-title.md
| Component | Rule |
|---|---|
NNNN | Zero-padded sequence number from script |
- | Separator |
slugified-title | Lowercase, hyphens, no special characters |
.md | Markdown extension |
references/madr-template.md - Official MADR template structurereferences/definition-of-done.md - E.C.A.D.R. quality criteria---
status: draft
date: 2024-01-15
decision-makers: [alice, bob]
---
# Use PostgreSQL for User Data Storage
## Context and Problem Statement
We need a database for user account data...
## Decision Drivers
* Data integrity requirements
* Query flexibility needs
* [INVESTIGATE: Confirm scaling projections with infrastructure team]
## Considered Options
* PostgreSQL
* MongoDB
* CockroachDB
## Decision Outcome
Chosen option: PostgreSQL, because...
## Consequences
### Good
* ACID compliance ensures data integrity
### Bad
* Requires more upfront schema design
### Neutral
* Team has moderate PostgreSQL experience