Author Architecture Decision Records for Systems You Own

Proof required

Submit: three ADRs in the standard format (context, decision, status, consequences, alternatives considered), each linked to a real codebase or project; and a 200-word reflection on the difference between documenting a decision and justifying it. A senior engineer or engineering manager must confirm the ADRs are genuine records of real decisions.

What gets checked

• All three ADRs have an alternatives-considered section with at least two alternatives — not just the chosen option
• The consequences section addresses both positive and negative consequences — not just benefits
• A senior engineer or engineering manager has confirmed the ADRs are genuine records of real decisions

Common mistakes

• ADRs with only the chosen option and no genuine alternatives — an ADR without alternatives is an announcement, not a record
• Consequences section that only lists benefits — every engineering decision has tradeoffs and an ADR must name them

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Does each ADR have at least two alternatives in the alternatives-considered section?
• Does the consequences section name both positive and negative consequences?
• Are these records of real decisions — or invented examples for the proof?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: the pre-decision ADR (dated before the review); evidence the review was held (meeting notes or transcript with at least two engineers participating); the post-decision retrospective ADR documenting what changed and why; and a 200-word reflection on what the review process changed about your original proposal.

What gets checked

• Pre-decision ADR was written and dated before the review — not after the implementation
• Review evidence shows at least two engineers participated and raised specific questions
• Post-decision retrospective documents what changed from the original proposal — not just confirms it was correct

Common mistakes

• Pre-decision ADR written after implementation — the proof requires the ADR to have driven the review
• Post-decision retrospective that only confirms the original proposal was correct — real reviews always change something

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Was the pre-decision ADR written and dated before the review meeting?
• Does the review evidence show at least two engineers with specific questions raised?
• Does the retrospective document what changed from the original proposal?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: a repository containing at least ten ADRs covering decisions at multiple levels — with dates, status, and consequences; and a recording or transcript of a system-level architecture briefing to a senior engineer or architect where they asked at least three specific questions about the decisions.

What gets checked

• At least ten ADRs covering decisions at multiple architectural levels — not ten ADRs about the same category
• Each ADR has a current status (proposed, accepted, deprecated, superseded)
• A senior engineer or architect asked at least three specific questions about the decisions in the briefing

Common mistakes

• Ten ADRs that all cover the same category of decision — the corpus must span multiple architectural levels
• Briefing that is a walkthrough without challenge — the reviewer must push back on at least some decisions

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Do the ADRs cover decisions at multiple architectural levels — not all in one category?
• Does each ADR have a current status reflecting actual state?
• Were at least three specific questions asked in the briefing?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.