Julien Gautier
0e58e32d29
Move the ADR folder under docs/ alongside the rest of the project
documentation. Convention (flat folder, globally-sequential 4-digit
numbering, tags-based categorization, MADR 4.0.0 format) is unchanged
- only the path moved.
- git mv decisions docs/decisions preserves history for all 18 ADRs +
README + template (19 files renamed in this commit).
- ADR-0001 amended in-place with a dated note documenting the
relocation. Status remains 'accepted' - the location detail
changed, the decision did not.
- All cross-references updated:
- CLAUDE.md (~17 ADR links + 3 mentions of decisions/ in the Project
rules section)
- docs/README.md (now references decisions/ as a sibling under docs/)
- docs/setup/03-angular-nx-monorepo.md (paths shortened from
../../decisions/ to ../decisions/, since setup/ and decisions/ are
now both inside docs/)
- docs/decisions/0003 ../CLAUDE.md adjusted to ../../CLAUDE.md
(one extra level of nesting)
- docs/decisions/template.md mention of the README path
- notes/asvs-level-decision-briefing-rssi.md mention of the index
Sanity verified: every ADR link in CLAUDE.md, docs/setup/03, and
docs/decisions/0001 resolves to an existing file. pnpm nx run-many
-t lint passes on 8 projects.
2.8 KiB
status, date, decision-makers, consulted, informed, tags
| status | date | decision-makers | consulted | informed | tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {proposed | rejected | accepted | deprecated | … | superseded by [ADR-NNNN](NNNN-example.md)} |
|
|
|
|
|
{short title, representative of solved problem and found solution}
Context and Problem Statement
{Describe the context and problem statement, e.g., in free form using two to three sentences or in the form of an illustrative story. You may want to articulate the problem in form of a question and add links to collaboration boards or issue management systems.}
Decision Drivers
- {decision driver 1, e.g., a force, facing concern, …}
- {decision driver 2, e.g., a force, facing concern, …}
- …
Considered Options
- {title of option 1}
- {title of option 2}
- {title of option 3}
- …
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "{title of option 1}", because {justification, e.g., only option which meets k.o. criterion / resolves force / comes out best (see below)}.
Consequences
- Good, because {positive consequence, e.g., improvement of one or more desired qualities, …}
- Bad, because {negative consequence, e.g., compromising one or more desired qualities, …}
- …
Confirmation
{Describe how the implementation of / compliance with the ADR is confirmed. E.g., by a review, an ArchUnit test, a Lighthouse CI threshold, an axe-core assertion. Although classified as optional, this element is included in most ADRs.}
Pros and Cons of the Options
{title of option 1}
{example | description | pointer to more information | …}
- Good, because {argument a}
- Good, because {argument b}
- Neutral, because {argument c}
- Bad, because {argument d}
{title of option 2}
{example | description | pointer to more information | …}
- Good, because {argument a}
- Good, because {argument b}
- Neutral, because {argument c}
- Bad, because {argument d}
More Information
{Additional evidence/confidence for the decision; team agreement; when and how the decision should be realized; consequences for other decisions, projects, or teams; links to related ADRs.}