← WORKS

Documenting Architecture Decisions

Nygard (2011) — origin of the ADR term and five-part template

Work

2011 Cognitect blog post coining Architecture Decision Records — context, decision, status, consequences — kept in the project repository.

Michael Nygard (2011). Documenting Architecture Decisions. Cognitect blog, 15 November 2011.
URL: https://www.cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions
(To the extent possible under law, Cognitect waived copyright on this post — CC0.)

The decision (meta)

The post is itself formatted as an ADR. The team accepted keeping ADRs in-repo as short markdown files so motivation survives team turnover.

Template we cite (industry ADR)

SectionRole
TitleShort noun phrase — e.g. “ADR 9: LDAP for Multitenant Integration”
ContextForces at play — technological, political, social, project-local; value-neutral facts
DecisionResponse in full sentences, active voice — “We will …”
Statusproposed · accepted · deprecated · superseded (with pointer to replacement)
ConsequencesResulting context — all consequences, not only positive

Target length: one to two pages. Whole document readable as a letter to a future developer.

What this is not (in our corpus)

Nygard’s ADR does not specify:

  • Epistemic tiers on claims
  • Assumption tables with falsification triggers and monitors
  • Named decision owner at the commitment boundary
  • Recorded dissent, contest path, or quality mechanisms
  • Binding as immutable L0 with event-sourced supersession

Those are corpus (A)DR extensions — grounded in Genesis, not in this post. See Architectural Decision Records.

Further reading (external)

Author

Michael Nygard