Skip to content
Back to skills

Ctx Add Decision

ASecurity

Record architectural decision. Use when a trade-off is resolved or a non-obvious design choice is made that future sessions need to know.

  • 57 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 17, 2026
databasesgobashsqldatabase

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 17, 2026

npx -y skills add diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill --skill ctx-add-decision --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Ctx Add Decision?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Ctx Add Decision
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/diegosouzapw-ctx-add-decision/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/diegosouzapw-ctx-add-decision)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: ctx-add-decision
description: "Record architectural decision. Use when a trade-off is resolved or a non-obvious design choice is made that future sessions need to know."
allowed-tools: Bash(ctx:*)
---

Record an architectural decision in DECISIONS.md.

## When to Use

- After resolving a trade-off between alternatives
- When making a non-obvious design choice
- When the "why" behind a choice needs to be preserved
- When future sessions need to understand why something is the way it is

## When NOT to Use

- Minor implementation details (use code comments instead)
- Routine maintenance or bug fixes
- Configuration changes that don't affect architecture
- When there was no real alternative to consider

## Decision Formats

### Quick Format (Y-Statement)

For lightweight decisions, use a single statement:

> "In the context of **[situation]**, facing **[constraint]**, we decided for 
> **[choice]** and against **[alternatives]**, to achieve **[benefit]**, 
> accepting that **[trade-off]**."

Example:
> "In the context of needing a CLI framework, facing Go ecosystem options, 
> we decided for Cobra and against urfave/cli, to achieve better subcommand 
> support, accepting that it has more boilerplate."

### Full Format

For significant decisions, gather:

1. **Context**: What situation prompted this decision? What constraints exist?
2. **Alternatives**: What options were considered? (At least 2)
3. **Decision**: What was chosen?
4. **Rationale**: Why this choice over the alternatives?
5. **Consequences**: What changes as a result? (Both positive and negative)

## Gathering Information

If the user provides only a title, ask:

1. "What prompted this decision?" → Context
2. "What alternatives did you consider?" → Options
3. "Why this choice over the alternatives?" → Rationale
4. "What are the consequences (good and bad)?" → Consequences

For quick decisions, offer the Y-statement format instead.

## Cross-Referencing

When a decision **supersedes** an earlier one:
- Mark the old decision as "Superseded by [new decision]"
- Reference the old decision in the new one
- Capture lessons learned from the original decision

When decisions are **related**:
- Note "See also: [related decision]" in consequences

## Execution

**Quick format:**
```bash
ctx add decision "Use Cobra for CLI framework" \
  --context "Need CLI framework for Go project" \
  --rationale "Better subcommand support than urfave/cli, team familiarity" \
  --consequences "More boilerplate, but clearer command structure"
```

**Full format with alternatives:**
```bash
ctx add decision "Use PostgreSQL for primary database" \
  --context "Need ACID-compliant database for e-commerce transactions" \
  --rationale "PostgreSQL offers JSONB, full-text search, and team has experience. Chose over MySQL (weaker JSON) and MongoDB (no multi-doc ACID)." \
  --consequences "Single database handles transactions and search. Team needs PostgreSQL-specific training."
```

## Quality Checklist

Before recording, verify:
- [ ] Context explains the problem clearly
- [ ] At least one alternative was considered
- [ ] Rationale addresses why alternatives were rejected
- [ ] Consequences include both benefits and trade-offs

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.