Extract ADRs from Meta Documents

!${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config context --skill extract-adrs --fail-safe !${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config agents --fail-safe

If no "Agent Names" section appears above, use these defaults: accelerator:reviewer, accelerator:codebase-locator, accelerator:codebase-analyser, accelerator:codebase-pattern-finder, accelerator:documents-locator, accelerator:documents-analyser, accelerator:web-search-researcher.

Decisions directory: !${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config path decisions --fail-safe Research directory: !${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config path research_codebase --fail-safe Plans directory: !${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config path plans --fail-safe

You are tasked with identifying architectural decisions within existing meta documents and helping the user capture them as formal ADRs.

Initial Setup

When this command is invoked:

1. Check if parameters were provided:

• If one or more file paths were provided, note them as the target documents
• If no parameters provided, respond with:

I'll help you extract architectural decisions from existing documents.

You can:
1. Specify documents to scan: `/accelerator:extract-adrs @{research directory}/2026-03-18-auth-flow.md`
2. Let me scan all documents in the configured directories for decisions (this may take a moment)

Which would you prefer?

Wait for user input.

Process Steps

Step 1: Identify Source Documents

1. If specific files were provided, read them FULLY
2. If scanning all meta documents:
   • Spawn a {documents locator agent} agent to find all documents in the configured research, plans, and decisions directories (shown above)
   • Present the discovered documents and let the user select which to scan:

     I found the following documents:
     
     **Research:**
     - `{research directory}/2026-03-18-auth-flow.md` — Authentication flow research
     - ...
     
     **Plans:**
     - `{plans directory}/2026-03-18-api-redesign.md` — API redesign plan
     - ...
     
     Which documents should I scan for decisions? (enter numbers, "all", or
     specific paths)
     

   • Wait for user selection

Step 2: Analyse Documents for Decisions

1. Spawn {documents analyser agent} agents (one per document, in parallel) with instructions to identify architectural decisions. Look for:

   • Explicit decision statements ("We decided...", "We will use...", "The approach is...")
   • Option comparisons and tradeoffs ("Option A vs Option B", "We considered...")
   • Technology selections ("We chose X", "Using Y because...")
   • Pattern/approach choices ("The pattern for this is...", "We'll follow the X approach")
   • Constraint acknowledgements ("Due to X, we must...", "Given the constraint of...")
   • Recommendations with rationale ("Recommendation: Use X because...")

2. Wait for all agents to complete

3. Present discovered decisions as Y-statement summaries:

I found the following architectural decisions in the scanned documents:

1. **[Short title]** — In the context of [X], facing [Y], we decided for [Z]
   to achieve [Q], accepting [D].
   Source: `{research directory}/2026-03-18-topic.md`

2. **[Short title]** — In the context of [X], facing [Y], we decided for [Z]
   to achieve [Q], accepting [D].
   Source: `{plans directory}/2026-03-18-topic.md`

3. ...

Which decisions would you like to capture as ADRs? (enter numbers, "all",
or "none")

Wait for user selection.

Step 3: Generate ADRs

1. Gather metadata by running ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator corpus metadata derive.

2. For each selected decision, generate a draft ADR using the create-adr template with:

   • Context pre-filled from the source document
   • Decision drivers extracted from the document's analysis
   • Considered options populated if the source discusses alternatives
   • Consequences derived from the document's findings
   • References linking back to the source document
   • Use a placeholder number (e.g., ADR-XXXX) in the draft — final numbers are assigned after approval to avoid gaps from skipped ADRs

3. Present each generated ADR for user review:

   Here's draft ADR #N of M:
   
   [ADR content with placeholder number]
   
   Does this look good? (yes / revise / skip / approve all remaining)
   

   Wait for approval before proceeding. If the user selects "approve all remaining", accept all subsequent drafts without further prompts.

4. Assign final ADR numbers to approved ADRs only, by running:

   ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator corpus adr next-number --count N
   

   where N is the number of approved (not skipped) ADRs. Replace placeholder numbers with the assigned sequential numbers. This ensures no gaps from skipped decisions.

Step 4: Write ADRs

1. Create the configured decisions directory if it doesn't exist

2. Populate frontmatter for each approved ADR. Before writing the file, capture metadata and substitute the unified base fields into the template's frontmatter block:

   1. Invoke ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator corpus metadata derive once for the batch to obtain Current Date/Time (UTC):.

   2. For each approved ADR, substitute every field below with the indicated value:

      • type: ← adr
      • id: ← the ADR identifier ADR-NNNN, always quoted as a YAML string
      • title: ← the ADR title (without the ADR-NNNN: prefix)
      • date: ← the Current Date/Time (UTC): value
      • author: ← the author resolved per the standard chain (config → VCS user → prompt)
      • producer: ← extract-adrs
      • status: ← proposed
      • last_updated: ← the same Current Date/Time (UTC): value
      • last_updated_by: ← the same value resolved for author
      • schema_version: ← 1 (bare integer)

      Optional linkage / decision-maker keys are omit-by-default: the template shows each as ""/[], but write a key into the artifact only when it has a value, and omit it entirely otherwise (do not carry the empty placeholder through).

      • parent: ← the owning work item as a typed-linkage ref ("work-item:NNNN"). Fill when the source names an owning work item; otherwise omit the key.
      • supersedes: ← a YAML list of typed-linkage refs of the form "adr:ADR-NNNN" to the ADR(s) this one replaces. Fill when the source records a supersession; otherwise omit the key.
      • relates_to: ← list of typed-linkage refs to loosely related ADRs (["adr:ADR-NNNN", ...]). Fill when related decisions are explicit in the source; otherwise omit the key.
      • decision_makers: ← a YAML list of the people who agreed. Fill when the source names them; otherwise omit the key.

3. Write each approved ADR to: {decisions directory}/ADR-NNNN-description.md

4. Present summary:

   Created the following ADRs:
   - `{decisions directory}/ADR-0001-description.md` — [title]
   - `{decisions directory}/ADR-0002-description.md` — [title]
   - ...
   
   All ADRs are in "proposed" status. Use `/accelerator:review-adr` to
   review and accept them.
   

Validate the frontmatter: after writing each ADR, run

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator corpus frontmatter validate --file {decisions directory}/ADR-NNNN-description.md

If it exits non-zero, that ADR violates the canonical frontmatter standard; report the emitted violation and fix the frontmatter before completing.

ADR Template

The ADR template is loaded directly via the template loader so the shape stays in sync with create-adr:

!${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config template adr --fail-safe

When populating the template from extracted decisions:

• Context: Extracted from the source document's forces and constraints
• Decision Drivers: Extracted from the document's analysis
• Considered Options: Populated if the source discusses alternatives
• Decision: Stated or implied decision, rewritten in active voice
• Consequences: Derived from the document's findings
• References: Always link back to the source document

Important Notes

• Decisions should be architecturally significant — not every choice is worth an ADR. Help the user distinguish between significant decisions and routine implementation choices.
• Extracted ADRs always start with status proposed — extraction is discovery, not acceptance.
• Preserve the source document's context faithfully — don't invent rationale that wasn't in the original.
• Cross-reference bidirectionally: the ADR references the source, and the user may wish to note the ADR in the source document.
• When extracting from a single document, multiple decisions may be found — each becomes a separate ADR.
• Use sequential numbering: determine the starting number once, then increment for batch creation.

!${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/accelerator config instructions extract-adrs --fail-safe