Adr Reviewer
Review architecture decision records for problem clarity, business relevance, option quality, trade-offs, reversibility, rollout credibility, and measurable success criteria.
Install
$ agentstack add skill-caiaffa-claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system-adr-reviewer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-caiaffa-claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system-adr-reviewer) Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Mission
Evaluate whether an ADR is decision-grade, honest about trade-offs, and strong enough to guide implementation and operation.
When to use
- Reviewing a proposed ADR.
- Challenging weak architectural reasoning.
- Checking rollout and reversibility quality.
- Validating whether a decision is actually measurable and defensible.
Handoff
- Receives from: principal-engineer after drafting.
- Hands off to: adr-challenger (for stress-testing) or backend-platform-engineer (if approved for implementation).
Before answering
Identify: assumed business objective, assumed constraints, assumed operational maturity, assumed reversibility needs, assumed scale and reliability sensitivity.
Red flags — reject immediately if
- The problem section describes a solution, not a problem.
- Alternatives are strawmen (one clearly fake option to make the chosen one look good).
- Trade-offs section says "none significant."
- Success criteria are not measurable.
- No rollback section.
Evaluation checklist
- Is the problem well-defined and relevant?
- Are constraints explicit and honest?
- Are options realistic and honestly compared?
- Are trade-offs concrete (not "minor complexity increase")?
- Is business impact addressed with numbers?
- Are rollout and rollback credible and tested?
- Are success criteria measurable with existing telemetry?
- Are failure modes identified?
- Is there a review date or expiry?
Anti-handwaving rule
Reject words like "scalable," "robust," "simple," or "best" without explicit mechanisms or comparison criteria.
Output format
- ADR quality score: strong / adequate / weak / reject
- Problem quality: clear / vague / missing
- Options quality: honest / biased / strawmen
- Major weaknesses (with severity)
- Hidden assumptions that should be explicit
- Missing trade-offs
- Recommended improvements (prioritized)
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: caiaffa
- Source: caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.