Claude-skill-registry adr-review

Multi-agent debate orchestration for Architecture Decision Records. Automatically triggers on ADR create/edit/delete. Coordinates architect, critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, and high-level-advisor agents in structured debate rounds until consensus.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/adr-review" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-adr-review && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/data/adr-review/SKILL.md
source content

ADR Review

Multi-agent debate pattern for rigorous ADR validation. Orchestrates 6 specialized agents through structured review rounds until consensus or 10 rounds maximum.

Quick Start

# Manual triggers:
/adr-review .agents/architecture/ADR-005-api-versioning.md
"review this ADR"
"validate ADR-005"

Automatic Detection: A Claude Code hook (

Invoke-ADRChangeDetection.ps1
) runs at session start and detects ADR changes, prompting you to invoke this skill. The pre-commit hook also detects staged ADR files and displays a reminder.

InputOutputConsensus Required
ADR file pathDebate log + Updated ADR6/6 Accept or D&C

File Triggers

PatternLocationEvents
ADR-*.md
.agents/architecture/
create, update, delete
ADR-*.md
docs/architecture/
create, update, delete

Detection:

.claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1

When to Use

MANDATORY Triggers (automatic):

  • Architect creates or updates an ADR
  • ANY agent modifies
    .agents/architecture/ADR-*.md

User-Initiated Triggers (manual):

  • User requests ADR review ("review this ADR", "validate this decision")
  • User requests multi-perspective validation for strategic decisions

Agent Roles

AgentFocusTie-Breaker Role
architectStructure, governance, coherence, ADR complianceStructural questions
criticGaps, risks, alignment, completenessNone
independent-thinkerChallenge assumptions, surface contrarian viewsNone
securityThreat models, security trade-offsNone
analystRoot cause, evidence, feasibilityNone
high-level-advisorPriority, resolve conflicts, break tiesDecision paralysis

Debate Protocol

PhasePurposeDetails
Phase 0Related work researchSearch issues/PRs for context
Phase 1Independent reviewEach agent reviews ADR
Phase 2ConsolidationIdentify consensus and conflicts
Phase 3ResolutionPropose updates for P0/P1 issues
Phase 4Convergence checkAgents vote: Accept/D&C/Block

Consensus: All 6 agents Accept OR Disagree-and-Commit. Max 10 rounds.

See references/debate-protocol.md for full phase details.

Deletion Workflow

PhasePurpose
D1Detection - identify deleted ADR
D2Impact assessment - find dependencies
D3Archival decision - archive accepted ADRs
D4Cleanup - update references

See references/deletion-workflow.md for full workflow.

Issue Resolution

PriorityRequirementGate
P0Must resolveBLOCKING
P1Resolve OR defer with issueBLOCKING
P2DocumentNon-blocking

See references/issue-resolution.md for deferral protocol.

Phase 4: Strategic Review (Principal-Level Validation)

After structural and technical review, apply strategic lenses:

Strategic Validation Checklist

Chesterton's Fence (Change Justification)

  • If removing/changing existing patterns: Original purpose documented
  • Investigation evidence provided (git archaeology, interviews, documentation)
  • Confirmation original problem no longer exists
  • Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Path Dependence (Irreversibility Recognition)

  • Historical constraints identified and documented
  • Reversibility assessment complete (rollback capability, vendor lock-in)
  • Migration/exit strategy defined if adding dependencies
  • Irreversible decisions explicitly flagged and justified
  • Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Core vs Context (Investment Prioritization)

  • Capability classified as Core (differentiating) or Context (commodity)
  • If building Context: Justification for not buying/outsourcing
  • If Core: Competitive differentiation explained
  • Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Second-System Effect (Over-Engineering Detection)

  • If replacing existing system: Scope boundaries explicit
  • Feature list justified (not "everything we didn't do last time")
  • Simplicity preservation strategy documented
  • Assessment: [PASS | FAIL | N/A]

Strategic Review Verdict

Overall Strategic Assessment: [APPROVED | CONCERNS | REJECTED]

Blocking Issues:

  • [Strategic issue 1 with required mitigation]
  • [Strategic issue 2 with required mitigation]

Recommendations:

  • [Strategic improvement 1]
  • [Strategic improvement 2]

Scripts

ScriptPurpose
Detect-ADRChanges.ps1
Detect ADR file changes for auto-trigger
# Basic detection
& .claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1

# Compare to specific commit
& .claude/skills/adr-review/scripts/Detect-ADRChanges.ps1 -SinceCommit "abc123"

Verification Checklist

After skill invocation:

  • Debate log exists at
    .agents/critique/ADR-NNN-debate-log.md
  • ADR status updated (proposed/accepted/needs-revision)
  • All P0 issues addressed or documented
  • Dissent captured for Disagree-and-Commit positions
  • Recommendations provided to orchestrator

Anti-Patterns

AvoidWhyInstead
Single-agent ADR reviewMisses domain expertiseUse full 6-agent debate
Skipping Phase 0Duplicates existing workAlways research first
Ignoring D&C dissentLoses important contextDocument all reservations
Manual ADR monitoringError-proneUse Detect-ADRChanges.ps1
Deleting accepted ADRs without archiveLoses knowledgeAlways archive accepted ADRs

References

DocumentContent
debate-protocol.mdFull Phases 0-4 workflow
deletion-workflow.mdPhases D1-D4 workflow
issue-resolution.mdP0/P1/P2 handling and deferral
artifacts.mdOutput formats and templates
agent-prompts.mdDetailed agent prompt templates