ADR Review

Multi-agent debate pattern for rigorous ADR validation. Orchestrates 6 specialized agents through structured review rounds until consensus or 10 rounds maximum.

When to Use

MANDATORY Triggers (automatic, non-negotiable):

• Architect creates or updates an ADR and signals orchestrator
• ANY agent creates or updates a file matching .agents/architecture/ADR-*.md
• Orchestrator detects ADR creation/update signal from agent output

User-Initiated Triggers (manual):

• User explicitly requests ADR review ("review this ADR", "validate this decision")
• User requests multi-perspective validation for strategic decisions

Enforcement:

The architect agent is configured to ALWAYS signal orchestrator with MANDATORY routing when ADR files are created/updated. Orchestrator is configured to BLOCK workflow continuation until adr-review completes.

Scope:

• Primary location: .agents/architecture/ADR-*.md
• Secondary location: docs/architecture/ADR-*.md (if project uses this structure)

Anti-Pattern:

• Architect routes to planner without adr-review
• Orchestrator proceeds to next agent without invoking adr-review
• User must manually request adr-review after ADR creation

Correct Pattern:

• Architect signals orchestrator: "MANDATORY: invoke adr-review"
• Orchestrator invokes adr-review skill
• Workflow continues only after adr-review completes

Agent Roles

Agent	Focus	Tie-Breaker Role
architect	Structure, governance, coherence, ADR compliance	Structural questions
critic	Gaps, risks, alignment, completeness	None
independent-thinker	Challenge assumptions, surface contrarian views	None
security	Threat models, security trade-offs	None
analyst	Root cause, evidence, feasibility	None
high-level-advisor	Priority, resolve conflicts, break ties	Decision paralysis

Debate Protocol

Phase 0: Related Work Research (NEW)

Before launching independent reviews, use analyst agent to search for related work:

Task(subagent_type="analyst", prompt="""
ADR Related Work Research

## ADR Being Reviewed
Title: [ADR title]
Key topics: [Extract 3-5 keywords from ADR]

## Research Tasks

1. **Search open Issues** for related discussions:
   ```bash
   gh issue list --state open --search "[keywords]" --json number,title,labels

2. Search open PRs for in-progress work:

   gh pr list --state open --search "[keywords]" --json number,title,headRefName
   

3. Search closed Issues for prior decisions:

   gh issue list --state closed --search "[keywords]" --limit 10 --json number,title,labels
   

Output Format

Related Issues

#	Title	Status	Relevance
[number]	[title]	open/closed	[How it relates to ADR]

Related PRs

#	Title	Branch	Status
[number]	[title]	[branch]	[open/merged/closed]

Implications for ADR Review

• [What existing work affects this ADR?]
• [Are there gaps already known?]
• [Should any issues be linked?]
• [Are any PRs already implementing this?] """)

Include related work findings in each Phase 1 agent prompt as context.

### Phase 1: Independent Review

Invoke each agent with the ADR content AND related work findings. Each provides:

```markdown
## [Agent] Review

### Strengths
- [What aspects are sound]

### Weaknesses/Gaps
- [What is missing, unclear, or problematic]

### Scope Concerns
- [Should this be split into multiple ADRs?]

### Questions
- [What needs clarification]

### Blocking Concerns
| Issue | Priority | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| [Issue] | P0/P1/P2 | [Details] |

P0 = blocking, P1 = important, P2 = nice-to-have

Agent Invocation Pattern:

Task(subagent_type="architect", prompt="""
ADR Review Request (Phase 1: Independent Review)

## ADR Content
[Full ADR text]

## Instructions
1. Review for structural compliance with MADR 4.0
2. Check alignment with existing ADRs in .agents/architecture/ and docs/architecture/
3. Identify scope concerns (should this be split?)
4. Classify all issues as P0/P1/P2
5. Return structured review per Phase 1 format
""")

Repeat for: critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, high-level-advisor.

Phase 2: Consolidation

After all 6 reviews complete:

1. List consensus points (agents agree)
2. List conflicts (agents disagree)
3. Route conflicts to high-level-advisor for resolution
4. Categorize all issues by priority after rulings
5. Draft consolidated change recommendations

Conflict Resolution Pattern:

Task(subagent_type="high-level-advisor", prompt="""
ADR Conflict Resolution Required

## Conflict 1: [Description]
- **architect position**: [Position]
- **security position**: [Position]
- Evidence: [Facts]

## Conflict 2: [Description]
...

## Decision Required
For each conflict, provide:
1. Which position prevails
2. Rationale
3. Whether ADR should be split
4. Final P0/P1/P2 classification
""")

Phase 3: Resolution

1. Propose specific updates addressing P0 and P1 issues
2. Document dissenting views for "Alternatives Considered" section
3. Record rationale for incorporated vs rejected feedback
4. Generate complete updated ADR text

Scope Split Detection:

If 2+ agents flag scope concerns, recommend splitting:

## Scope Split Recommendation

**Original ADR**: [Title]

**Proposed Split**:
1. ADR-NNN-A: [Focused decision 1]
2. ADR-NNN-B: [Focused decision 2]

**Rationale**: [Why splitting improves clarity and enforceability]

Phase 4: Convergence Check

Re-invoke each agent to review proposed updates:

Task(subagent_type="[agent]", prompt="""
ADR Convergence Check (Round [N])

## Updated ADR
[Full updated ADR text]

## Changes Made
[Summary of changes from Phase 3]

## Your Previous Concerns
[Agent's Phase 1 concerns]

## Instructions
Provide ONE position:
- **Accept**: No blocking concerns remain
- **Disagree-and-Commit**: Reservations exist but agree to proceed (document dissent)
- **Block**: Unresolved P0 concerns (specify what remains)
""")

Consensus Criteria:

• All 6 agents Accept OR Disagree-and-Commit = Consensus reached
• Any agent Blocks = Another round required (if round < 10)
• Round 10 with no consensus = Conclude with unresolved issues documented

Round Management

## Debate State

**Round**: [N] of 10
**Status**: [In Progress | Consensus | Concluded Without Consensus]

### Agent Positions
| Agent | Position | Notes |
|-------|----------|-------|
| architect | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |
| critic | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |
| independent-thinker | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |
| security | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |
| analyst | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |
| high-level-advisor | Accept/D&C/Block | [Brief note] |

### Unresolved Issues (if any)
[List P0 issues still blocking]

Artifact Storage

Save debate artifacts to .agents/critique/:

Debate Log

Save to: .agents/critique/ADR-NNN-debate-log.md

# ADR Debate Log: [ADR Title]

## Summary
- **Rounds**: [N]
- **Outcome**: [Consensus | Concluded Without Consensus]
- **Final Status**: [proposed | accepted | needs-revision]

## Round [N] Summary

### Key Issues Addressed
- [Issue 1]
- [Issue 2]

### Major Changes Made
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

### Agent Positions
| Agent | Position |
|-------|----------|
| ... | ... |

### Next Steps
[If applicable]

Updated ADR

Save to: .agents/architecture/ADR-NNN-[title].md (or update in place)

Recommendations

Return to orchestrator with structured recommendations:

## ADR Review Complete

**ADR**: [Path]
**Consensus**: [Yes/No]
**Rounds**: [N]

### Outcome
- **Status**: [accepted | needs-revision | split-recommended]
- **Updated ADR**: [Path to updated file]
- **Debate Log**: [Path to debate log]

### Scope Split (if applicable)
[Details of recommended splits]

### Planning Recommendations
[If ADR accepted and implementation planning needed]

**Recommend orchestrator routes to**:
- planner: Create implementation work packages
- task-generator: Break into atomic tasks
- None: ADR is informational only

Integration Points

Prior ADR Locations

Check these locations for existing ADRs and patterns:

• .agents/architecture/ADR-*.md
• docs/architecture/ADR-*.md

ADR Template Reference

Use MADR 4.0 format per architect.md. Key sections:

• Context and Problem Statement
• Decision Drivers
• Considered Options
• Decision Outcome (with Consequences and Confirmation)
• Pros and Cons of Options

Reversibility Assessment

Every ADR must include reversibility assessment per architect.md:

• Rollback capability
• Vendor lock-in assessment
• Exit strategy
• Legacy impact
• Data migration reversibility

Example Invocation

User triggers:

Review this ADR: .agents/architecture/ADR-005-api-versioning.md

Orchestrator triggers:

# When architect creates/updates ADR
Task(subagent_type="orchestrator", prompt="""
Trigger adr-review skill for: .agents/architecture/ADR-005-api-versioning.md

Follow debate protocol in .claude/skills/adr-review/SKILL.md
""")

Efficiency Notes

• Phase 0 is critical: Related work research prevents duplicate effort and identifies existing gaps
• Most reviews converge in 1-2 rounds when high-level-advisor resolves conflicts early
• Skip Phase 1 re-invocation for agents with no relevant expertise (e.g., security for pure process ADRs)
• Cache agent positions between rounds to avoid re-reading unchanged concerns
• If Phase 0 finds an open PR already implementing the ADR, consider deferring review until PR is merged

Related Work Integration

When Phase 0 finds related items:

Finding	Action
Open issue discussing same topic	Link in ADR, acknowledge in review
Closed issue with prior decision	Verify ADR aligns or documents deviation
Open PR implementing feature	Wait for PR or coordinate with author
Known gap in backlog	Verify ADR addresses the gap
Duplicate proposal	Consider closing in favor of existing