Imported from josiahsiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace (
plugins/doc-master/skills/adr-discovery/SKILL.md). Install upstream withnpx skills add josiahsiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace --skill adr-discovery. Copyright stays with the author.
adr-discovery
Pre-flight context gathering for an ADR. The output is a docs/architecture/discovery-brief.md containing only human-confirmed facts, plus a docs/architecture/open-questions.md register of unknowns. The architect then hands off to adr-drafting to actually draft the decision.
Core rule: zero hallucination
No fact enters the discovery brief until the architect says yes. Code findings, doc findings, and inferences are all presented as questions, never as assertions.
| Wrong | Right |
|---|---|
| "Your system uses Postgres and Redis." | "I see pg and ioredis in package.json. Is Postgres your primary store? (yes / no / unsure)" |
| "Component A talks to component B." | "I see a fetch from A to B in src/a/client.ts. Does A depend on B? (yes / no)" |
Every confirmed fact is dated and tagged in the brief: [CONFIRMED YYYY-MM-DD]. Unconfirmed code findings get [FROM CODE, UNCONFIRMED YYYY-MM-DD] and live in open-questions.md, not the brief.
Fact states
| State | Where it lives | Allowed to drive a decision? |
|---|---|---|
CONFIRMED |
discovery-brief.md |
Yes |
FROM CODE, UNCONFIRMED |
open-questions.md |
No |
UNKNOWN |
open-questions.md |
No |
PARKED |
open-questions.md (with reason) |
No — must be noted in ADR Consequences |
Vocabulary (define on first use)
- Component — a runnable / deployable unit (C4 Container). Not a code class.
- System — the one bounded product in focus for this ADR. Exactly one.
- External system — a system the team does not own but interacts with.
- Actor — a human role (Person in C4 terms).
- Architectural characteristic — the non-functional quality under pressure (latency, cost, maintainability, availability, security posture, etc.).
- Tension — two ADRs that conflict without one superseding the other. A tension is a fact, not a failure; it must be acknowledged.
- RFC — a proposal-stage doc. ADRs are for decisions already made.
Style
- One topic at a time. Never ask two questions in one turn.
- Restate the architect's answer in your own words before recording it.
- Direct. Skip "Great question!", "Excellent!", and other affirmations.
- Name specific files, tech, and components — never vague nouns ("the service," "the database").
- If a turn would contain more than one
?or run more than a short paragraph, shorten it.
The nine phases
1. Scan, don't summarize
Glob the repo for signals — never assert what you find.
- ADR directories:
docs/adr/,docs/decisions/,docs/architecture/decisions/,**/adr/*.md; also check legacyarchitecture/decisions/and warn it may need custom ADR Explorer root configuration - Manifests:
package.json,pyproject.toml,Cargo.toml,go.mod,pom.xml,*.csproj - READMEs at the repo root and one level down
- LikeC4 files:
**/*.c4,likec4.config.* - Existing
discovery-brief.md/open-questions.md
Report raw findings only: "I found these files: X, Y, Z. I have not interpreted them yet." Then ask: "Should I walk through them with you one at a time, or do you want to start from a clean slate?"
Optionally offer live diagram mode — see references/live-diagram-mode.md — but only after the architect opts in.
2. Confirm domain
Ask exactly one question: "What does this system do, and for whom?"
Wait for an answer. Restate. Confirm. Then write a single Domain: line to the brief.
3. Confirm components one at a time
Define Component (a C4 Container — a deployable unit). Then walk candidates one by one. For each:
- State the candidate name as you found it (in the manifest, the README, the LikeC4 file, or the architect's words).
- Ask: "Is this a component in scope for this decision? (yes / no / out of scope)"
- If yes: ask for a one-line description in the architect's words.
- If no: drop it.
- Hard limit: 5 components. If the architect names a 6th, ask whether the decision is bundled.
4. Confirm relationships with human-written descriptions
For each confirmed component pair, ask: "Does A depend on B? If yes, in one line, what does A use B for?"
A relationship without a human-written description does not enter the brief. "A talks to B" is not a description.
5. Confirm existing ADRs
Glob the ADR directory. For each ADR, ask one of:
- Supersedes? — does this new decision replace this prior one?
- Amends? — does it adjust without replacing?
- Relates-to? — does it share context but stand alone?
- Tension? — does it conflict, with neither superseding?
- Unrelated? — drop it.
Only the architect's answer enters the brief. Inference does not.
6. Multi-repo + ecosystem probe
Many decisions cross repo boundaries. Ask per related repo:
- Role (consumer / producer / shared library / platform)
- Owner (named team or person)
- Access (read / write / no access)
- Existing ADRs in that repo
- Existing C4 / architecture diagrams
Beyond repos, ask whether the org has:
- A wiki / Backstage / TechRadar / platform-level ADR set
- Compliance constraints (data residency, SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR, FedRAMP) that bind the decision
- A platform team whose decisions the architect inherits
7. Checklist gate
Before hand-off, all five MUSTs must be CONFIRMED:
| MUST | Confirmed when… |
|---|---|
| Domain | Architect has stated what the system does and for whom |
| Architectural characteristic under pressure | Architect named the quality being optimized (latency / cost / availability / etc.) and the specific number or condition forcing the decision |
| ≤5 components in scope | Architect confirmed each by name, with a one-line description |
| Related ADRs classified | Each existing ADR classified or explicitly dropped |
| Named decision-maker | Specific human(s) — not "the team," not "leadership" |
If any MUST is UNKNOWN or PARKED, the skill refuses to advance and routes to open-questions.md.
8. C4 handoff (optional)
If the architect wants a diagram before drafting, hand off to c4-model (canonical C4: Context + Container views only). Skip if they don't.
9. Handoff to drafting
When all five MUSTs are confirmed, write a one-line summary at the bottom of discovery-brief.md:
Discovery complete: 2026-05-20. Hand off to adr-drafting.The drafting skill reads the brief and does not re-ask anything in it.
Living files (kept deliberately outside ADR-parsed directories)
docs/architecture/discovery-brief.md and docs/architecture/open-questions.md are intentionally not under docs/adr/, so ADR-parser tools and indexes don't mistake them for ADRs.
discovery-brief.md shape
# Discovery Brief
## Domain
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] One sentence -- what does the system do, for whom.
## System in focus
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] Single named system.
## Architectural characteristic under pressure
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] e.g., "p95 read latency < 200ms on cross-entity reports."
## Components in scope (≤5)
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - Name -- one-line description (architect's words)
...
## Relationships
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - A → B: A uses B to <verb phrase>
...
## External actors
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - Role -- one-line description
...
## Existing ADRs in play
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - 0007 -- supersedes / amends / relates-to / tension
## Repos in play
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - repo: role / owner / access / ADRs / C4
## Ecosystem constraints
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - Compliance, platform, wiki/Backstage hits
## Decision-makers
[CONFIRMED 2026-05-20] - Named human(s)
---
Discovery complete: 2026-05-20. Hand off to adr-drafting.open-questions.md shape — see references/open-questions-register.md for the full schema.
The "ADR IS NOT" rules apply here too
Even during discovery, do not tutorialize, hedge, or invent. See ../_shared/adr-is-not.md for the shared checklist.
References
references/live-diagram-mode.md— opt-in LikeC4 live-diagram workflow during discoveryreferences/open-questions-register.md— schema and discipline foropen-questions.md../_shared/adr-is-not.md— shared "ADR is not" checklist