Extract architectural decisions from conversations. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off discussions, and explicit choices. Use when analyzing session transcripts for ADR generation.
Scanned 2/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill adr-decision-extraction --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Adr Decision Extraction?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/existential-birds-adr-decision-extraction)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: adr-decision-extraction
description: Extract architectural decisions from conversations. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off discussions, and explicit choices. Use when analyzing session transcripts for ADR generation.
---
# ADR Decision Extraction
Extract architectural decisions from conversation context for ADR generation.
## Detection Signals
| Signal Type | Examples |
|-------------|----------|
| Explicit markers | `[ADR]`, "decided:", "the decision is" |
| Choice patterns | "let's go with X", "we'll use Y", "choosing Z" |
| Trade-off discussions | "X vs Y", "pros/cons", "considering alternatives" |
| Problem-solution pairs | "the problem is... so we'll..." |
## Extraction Rules
### Explicit Tags (Guaranteed Inclusion)
Text marked with `[ADR]` is always extracted:
```
[ADR] Using PostgreSQL for user data storage due to ACID requirements
```
These receive `confidence: "high"` automatically.
### AI-Detected Decisions
Patterns detected without explicit tags require confidence assessment:
| Confidence | Criteria |
|------------|----------|
| **high** | Clear statement of choice with rationale |
| **medium** | Implied decision from action taken |
| **low** | Contextual inference, may need verification |
## Output Format
```json
{
"decisions": [
{
"title": "Use PostgreSQL for user data",
"problem": "Need ACID transactions for financial records",
"chosen_option": "PostgreSQL",
"alternatives_discussed": ["MongoDB", "SQLite"],
"drivers": ["ACID compliance", "team familiarity"],
"confidence": "high",
"source_context": "Discussion about database selection in planning phase"
}
]
}
```
### Field Definitions
| Field | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| `title` | Yes | Concise decision summary |
| `problem` | Yes | Problem or context driving the decision |
| `chosen_option` | Yes | The selected solution or approach |
| `alternatives_discussed` | No | Other options mentioned (empty array if none) |
| `drivers` | No | Factors influencing the decision |
| `confidence` | Yes | `high`, `medium`, or `low` |
| `source_context` | No | Brief description of where decision appeared |
## Extraction Workflow
1. **Scan for explicit markers** - Find all `[ADR]` tagged content
2. **Identify choice patterns** - Look for decision language
3. **Extract trade-off discussions** - Capture alternatives and reasoning
4. **Assess confidence** - Rate each non-explicit decision
5. **Capture context** - Note surrounding discussion for ADR writer
## Pattern Examples
### High Confidence
```
"We decided to use Redis for caching because of its sub-millisecond latency
and native TTL support. Memcached was considered but lacks persistence."
```
Extracts:
- Title: Use Redis for caching
- Problem: Need fast caching with TTL
- Chosen: Redis
- Alternatives: Memcached
- Drivers: sub-millisecond latency, native TTL, persistence
- Confidence: high
### Medium Confidence
```
"Let's go with TypeScript for the frontend since we're already using it
in the backend."
```
Extracts:
- Title: Use TypeScript for frontend
- Problem: Language choice for frontend
- Chosen: TypeScript
- Alternatives: (none stated)
- Drivers: consistency with backend
- Confidence: medium
### Low Confidence
```
"The API seems to be working well with REST endpoints."
```
Extracts:
- Title: REST API architecture
- Problem: API design approach
- Chosen: REST
- Alternatives: (none stated)
- Drivers: (none stated)
- Confidence: low
## Best Practices
### Context Capture
Always capture sufficient context for the ADR writer:
- What was the discussion about?
- Who was involved (if known)?
- What prompted the decision?
### Merge Related Decisions
If multiple statements relate to the same decision, consolidate them:
- Combine alternatives from different mentions
- Aggregate drivers
- Use highest confidence level
### Flag Ambiguity
When decisions are unclear or contradictory:
- Note the ambiguity in `source_context`
- Set confidence to `low`
- Include all interpretations if multiple exist
## When to Use This Skill
- Analyzing session transcripts for ADR generation
- Reviewing conversation history for documentation
- Extracting decisions from design discussions
- Preparing input for ADR writing tools
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!