Skip to main contentADR-0001: Record Architecture Decisions
Status
Accepted
Date
2024-01-15
Context
As the Skyflow platform grows, we need a way to document significant architectural decisions. Without proper documentation:
- New team members struggle to understand why certain decisions were made
- We risk revisiting the same decisions repeatedly
- Institutional knowledge is lost when team members leave
- It’s difficult to evaluate past decisions in light of new information
We need a lightweight but consistent approach to documenting these decisions that:
- Is easy to write and maintain
- Lives alongside the code
- Is searchable and versioned
- Encourages thoughtful decision-making
Decision
We will use Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) as described by Michael Nygard in his article “Documenting Architecture Decisions.”
Each ADR will:
- Be stored in the
adr/ directory of this repository
- Be numbered sequentially (e.g.,
0001-decision-title.md)
- Follow the template defined in adr/template
- Use Markdown format for easy reading and editing
- Be immutable once accepted (superseded by new ADRs if changed)
The ADR format includes:
- Status: The current state of the decision
- Context: The situation and constraints
- Decision: What we decided to do
- Consequences: The results of the decision
- Alternatives Considered: Other options we evaluated
Consequences
Positive
- Decisions are documented and searchable
- New team members can understand historical context
- Forces explicit consideration of alternatives and consequences
- Creates a decision log that can be reviewed and learned from
- Lightweight enough to not be burdensome
Negative
- Requires discipline to write ADRs for significant decisions
- May create overhead for smaller decisions
- Documentation may become stale if not maintained
Risks
- ADRs might not be written if the process is seen as too heavyweight
- The definition of “significant decision” may vary between team members
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: Wiki-based documentation
We considered using a wiki (Confluence, Notion) for architecture documentation.
Rejected because:
- Wikis are separate from the code
- Version history is less clear
- Harder to review as part of PRs
- May become outdated more easily
We considered relying on code comments and verbal communication.
Rejected because:
- Knowledge is lost when team members leave
- Difficult to understand historical context
- Same decisions get revisited repeatedly
- Onboarding is more difficult
We considered creating formal architecture documents with detailed specifications.
Rejected because:
- Too heavyweight for most decisions
- Discourages documentation due to high effort
- Becomes outdated quickly
- Harder to write incrementally
References
