Skip to content

Record Architecture Decisions

  • Status: accepted
  • Deciders: Development Team
  • Date: 2025-08-24

Technical Story: Establish systematic approach to documenting architectural decisions for the aider-lint-fixer project.

Context and Problem Statement

The aider-lint-fixer project has grown in complexity with AI integration, modular plugin architecture, and multi-language linting support. Key architectural decisions were made without formal documentation, making it difficult for new team members to understand the rationale behind design choices and creating risk for future architectural evolution.

Decision Drivers

  • Need for transparent decision-making process
  • Knowledge preservation for team continuity
  • Historical context for future architectural changes
  • Compliance with software engineering best practices
  • Support for methodological pragmatism framework

Considered Options

  • No formal documentation (status quo)
  • Lightweight decision logs in README
  • Full ADR (Architectural Decision Records) process
  • Wiki-based architecture documentation

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "Full ADR (Architectural Decision Records) process", because it provides structured, version-controlled documentation that integrates with our existing Git workflow and supports the methodological pragmatism approach with explicit reasoning and verification processes.

Positive Consequences

  • Clear historical record of architectural decisions
  • Improved onboarding for new team members
  • Better architectural governance and consistency
  • Support for systematic verification processes
  • Integration with existing documentation structure

Negative Consequences

  • Additional overhead for documenting decisions
  • Requires discipline to maintain ADR process
  • Initial time investment to document existing decisions

Pros and Cons of the Options

No formal documentation (status quo)

  • Good, because no additional process overhead
  • Bad, because knowledge is lost when team members leave
  • Bad, because decision rationale is unclear to new contributors
  • Bad, because architectural inconsistencies can emerge

Lightweight decision logs in README

  • Good, because minimal process overhead
  • Good, because centralized location
  • Bad, because lacks structured format
  • Bad, because becomes unwieldy as project grows

Full ADR (Architectural Decision Records) process

  • Good, because structured and standardized format
  • Good, because version controlled with code
  • Good, because supports methodological pragmatism
  • Good, because widely adopted industry practice
  • Bad, because requires process discipline
  • Bad, because initial setup effort

Wiki-based architecture documentation

  • Good, because easy to edit and maintain
  • Good, because supports rich formatting
  • Bad, because separate from code repository
  • Bad, because lacks version control integration
  • Bad, because can become stale