Files
apf_portal/decisions/0001-use-adrs-to-record-architectural-decisions.md
T
Julien Gautier 79eee77594 chore: initialize repository with project rules, docs, and phase-1 ADRs
Set up the foundation for the adastra-portal project:

- CLAUDE.md captures durable project rules (quality bar, security/perf/a11y
  as first-class, language, commit conventions, ADR proactivity).
- docs/ and decisions/ scaffolding with maintained indexes (docs/README.md
  and decisions/README.md), MADR 4.0.0 template, and tag vocabulary.
- Phase-1 ADRs (0001-0006) lock structural choices: ADR usage, Nx monorepo
  with the apps preset, naming convention (adastra-portal / portal-shell /
  portal-bff), Angular CSR/zoneless/Signals/Vitest, NestJS over Express,
  PostgreSQL with Prisma.
- docs/setup/ guides translated to English.
- .gitignore covers Node/Nx artifacts and the personal notes/ scratchpad.

The Nx workspace itself is not yet bootstrapped; that step is gated on a
revised setup guide aligned with the ADRs.
2026-04-29 20:43:00 +02:00

3.4 KiB

status, date, decision-makers, tags
status date decision-makers tags
accepted 2026-04-29 R&D Lead
process

Use ADRs to record architectural decisions

Context and Problem Statement

Architecturally-significant decisions will be taken throughout the lifecycle of adastra-portal. Without a written, durable trace of why a decision was made — context, drivers, alternatives, trade-offs — that knowledge fades within months. New contributors re-litigate settled debates, the rationale of constraints (security, performance, accessibility) gets lost, and reversing a choice later becomes risky because nobody remembers what it was protecting against.

How do we record decisions in a way that is light enough to be sustained, durable enough to outlive contributor turnover, and integrated into the development workflow?

Decision Drivers

  • Preserve the why of each decision so future contributors can understand or revisit it without re-deriving it.
  • Make architecture reviewable — both at the time of a decision and during retrospective audits.
  • Keep the format light enough that writing an ADR isn't a bureaucratic deterrent.
  • Live alongside the code in version control, so decisions evolve with what they govern.
  • Match the project's stated values: high technical bar, no bricolage, security/performance/accessibility as first-class concerns whose rationale must be traceable.

Considered Options

  • No formal records — rely on commit messages and tribal knowledge.
  • External wiki / Confluence — decisions live outside the codebase.
  • ADRs in markdown using the MADR 4.0.0 format, in-repo.
  • ADRs in another format (Nygard, Y-Statement, Cockburn).

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: ADRs in markdown using MADR 4.0.0, stored in decisions/ at the repository root.

Conventions are defined in README.md:

  • flat folder layout (no nested category folders);
  • globally sequential 4-digit numeric prefix (NNNN-kebab-title.md);
  • categorization via the tags: field in the MADR frontmatter, drawn from a canonical vocabulary;
  • status lifecycle: proposedaccepted → optionally deprecated / superseded by ADR-NNNN;
  • index maintained in README.md alongside any ADR change.

Consequences

  • Good, because the why of every architecturally-significant decision is captured at the moment it is made and travels with the code.
  • Good, because ADRs are reviewed via the normal pull-request flow — architecture becomes an explicit team conversation.
  • Good, because MADR provides enough structure (drivers, options, trade-offs) without being heavy.
  • Good, because flat-folder + tags scales better than nested category folders as the count grows.
  • Bad, because writing an ADR adds friction; this must be balanced against the cost of not writing one.
  • Bad, because the index is maintained manually until tooling or a CI check is added.

Confirmation

  • Every change introducing or transitioning the status of an ADR updates the index table in README.md in the same commit.
  • PR review explicitly checks for ADR proposal whenever a non-trivial decision is being introduced.
  • (Future) A CI lint job validates filename pattern, frontmatter shape, and tag vocabulary.

More Information