SkillCheck validator, Cursor exports, and per-agent installers (#27)
Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
GitHub
+128
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: "Create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for any technical decision. Use when asked to document a technical decision, write an ADR, record an architecture choice, or capture why a technology or approach was selected. Produces a structured ADR with context, decision, consequences, and tradeoffs."
|
||||
globs:
|
||||
alwaysApply: false
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Architecture Decision Record (ADR) Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill produces a complete Architecture Decision Record (ADR) following the Nygard format — the most widely adopted standard. ADRs document the reasoning behind significant technical decisions so future team members understand not just *what* was decided, but *why*.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **ADR number** (sequential number in your ADR registry — e.g. 012; or "next available" if unknown)
|
||||
- **Decision title** (brief, e.g. "Use PostgreSQL as primary datastore")
|
||||
- **Context** (what situation led to this decision needing to be made?)
|
||||
- **Options considered** (at least 2; if only 1 is given, prompt for alternatives that were considered or ruled out)
|
||||
- **Decision made** (which option was chosen)
|
||||
- **Reason for choice**
|
||||
- **Status** (Proposed / Accepted / Deprecated / Superseded)
|
||||
- **Author and date**
|
||||
- **Team context** (optional — team size, relevant experience, org constraints; helps calibrate formality and depth of the Context section)
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# ADR-[NNN]: [Decision Title]
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
**Status:** [Proposed / Accepted / Deprecated / Superseded by ADR-NNN]
|
||||
**Author(s):** [Name(s)]
|
||||
**Deciders:** [Who had final say — individual or team]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
[3–6 sentences. Describe the situation, constraints, and forces at play that made this decision necessary. Include: the problem being solved, relevant system state, team constraints, timeline pressures, or non-negotiable requirements. Write as if explaining to someone joining the team 18 months from now who has no prior context.]
|
||||
|
||||
**Key constraints:**
|
||||
- [Constraint 1: e.g. "Must be deployable on-premise for enterprise customers"]
|
||||
- [Constraint 2: e.g. "Team has no prior Go experience"]
|
||||
- [Add as many as are relevant]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Options Considered
|
||||
|
||||
For each option, produce:
|
||||
|
||||
### Option [N]: [Name]
|
||||
|
||||
**Description:** [What this option is — 1–3 sentences]
|
||||
|
||||
**Pros:**
|
||||
- [Pro 1]
|
||||
- [Pro 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cons:**
|
||||
- [Con 1]
|
||||
- [Con 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this was ruled out (if not chosen):** [Honest reason]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**We will [chosen option].**
|
||||
|
||||
[2–4 sentences explaining the decision in plain language. This should be readable in isolation — someone should understand the decision from this paragraph alone without reading the full document.]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
### Positive Consequences
|
||||
- [What this decision enables or improves]
|
||||
- [What risk it mitigates]
|
||||
|
||||
### Negative Consequences / Accepted Tradeoffs
|
||||
- [What we're giving up or taking on as a result of this decision]
|
||||
- [Technical debt or limitations introduced]
|
||||
- [What must now be true for this decision to remain valid]
|
||||
|
||||
### Risks
|
||||
- [What could cause this decision to be wrong in hindsight]
|
||||
- [What would trigger us to revisit this decision]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Notes
|
||||
|
||||
[Include if the decision has non-obvious implementation gotchas, or if there are related tickets/RFCs implementers will need. Skip only if the decision is purely tooling selection with no implementation ambiguity.]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Date
|
||||
|
||||
[Include unless the decision is permanent or self-evidently final. State a specific trigger condition — e.g. "Review if team grows beyond 20 engineers or traffic exceeds 10M requests/day" — not just "should be reviewed periodically".]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Context explains the *why* — not just the *what*
|
||||
- [ ] At least 2 options are documented (including the rejected ones)
|
||||
- [ ] Rejected options include honest reasons for rejection
|
||||
- [ ] Consequences include *negative* consequences — no decision is consequence-free
|
||||
- [ ] Decision is stated in plain language in the Decision section
|
||||
- [ ] Risks section identifies what would invalidate this decision
|
||||
- [ ] Context section states the problem explicitly in its first 1–2 sentences (does not assume the reader knows what problem the team was solving)
|
||||
- [ ] Each rejected option's "Why ruled out" explanation names a specific constraint or trade-off (not a circular statement like "didn't meet our requirements")
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not write an ADR after the decision has already been fully implemented and the team has moved on — ADRs written retrospectively often omit the real reasons and alternatives
|
||||
- [ ] Do not list only the chosen option — rejected options with honest reasons are the most valuable part of an ADR for future readers
|
||||
- [ ] Do not write consequences that are all positive — every architectural decision involves trade-offs; an ADR with no negative consequences was not scrutinised honestly
|
||||
- [ ] Do not leave the status as "Proposed" indefinitely — an ADR that no one has approved is not guiding anyone's decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Do not write context that assumes the reader already knows what problem was being solved — the context section exists precisely for readers who lack that background
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage Examples
|
||||
- "Write an ADR for using [technology]"
|
||||
- "Document our decision to [architectural choice]"
|
||||
- "Create an architecture decision record for [topic]"
|
||||
- "Help me write up why we chose [option] over [alternative]"
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user