
Enterprise Architecture Decision Documentation
Document architecture decisions with compliance validation and trade-off analysis
What You Can Do
You can generate formally structured Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that document your architectural choices with stakeholder impact assessment and quantified trade-offs. The skill validates decisions against enterprise compliance frameworks (SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, FedRAMP), analyzes effects across all stakeholders, and produces governance-ready documentation suitable for architecture review boards and strategic planning.
Features
Creates properly formatted decision records following Nygard ADR template with Status, Context, Decision, Consequences, and Alternatives sections
Automatically checks decisions against enterprise compliance frameworks (SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, FedRAMP) and flags regulatory risks
Maps effects across engineering teams, operations, security, compliance, and business stakeholders with severity scoring
Calculates measurable trade-offs using cost models (infrastructure, maintenance, licensing), performance metrics, and risk exposure
Compares rejected options with decision rationale, risk scores, and implementation effort estimates
Identifies architectural dependencies, affected systems, data flows, and rollback complexity for portfolio decisions
Generates implementation roadmaps with milestone definitions, team allocations, and rollback procedures
Creates C-level abstracts highlighting business impact, regulatory implications, and strategic alignment
Example Output
Example 1: Microservices Migration Decision
ADR-042: Adopt Microservices Architecture for Order Processing
Status: Accepted (2026-Q3)
Context:
Monolithic order system hits 500ms response times at 10K RPS. Deployment velocity blocked by coupling. Compliance audits flag single-point-of-failure risks.
Decision:
Migrate to microservices (Order, Payment, Fulfillment, Notification). Kubernetes with event-driven communication.
Consequences:
- Cost: +$45K/month infrastructure, -$200K licensing savings
- Performance: 95th percentile latency 120ms (from 500ms)
- Compliance: Isolated systems simplify audit trails (HIPAA-ready)
- Risk: Distributed complexity, +15% engineering overhead
Stakeholder Impact:
- Platform Engineering: Critical (8-week onboarding, +2 SREs)
- Security: High (enhanced isolation, reduced blast radius)
- Finance: High (+15% OpEx, licensing savings offset)
- Product: High (40% faster feature velocity)
Example 2: Trade-off Quantification Matrix
Decision: PostgreSQL with Sharding vs. MySQL Vertical Scaling vs. Managed Cloud DB
Criteria │ PostgreSQL+Shard │ MySQL Scale-Up │ Cloud Managed
─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────
Setup Cost │ $12K │ $8K │ $3K
Monthly OpEx │ $15K │ $18K │ $22K
12-Month Total │ $192K │ $224K │ $267K
GDPR Data Residency │ ✓ Full control │ ✓ Full control │ ✗ Vendor risk
Scalability (RPS) │ 100K+ │ 15K max │ Unlimited
Complexity Score │ 7/10 │ 4/10 │ 2/10
Recommendation: PostgreSQL (best compliance + cost balance)
What's Included
- SKILL.md: Complete Architecture Decision Documentation prompt with compliance validation logic, stakeholder mapping frameworks, and trade-off quantification models
- ADR template: Nygard-compliant template with enterprise sections (compliance checklist, stakeholder matrix, cost calculator)
- Compliance checklist: SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, FedRAMP requirements mapped to architectural decision contexts
- Stakeholder impact worksheet: Template for mapping affected parties, severity assessment, and cross-team concerns
- Trade-off quantification framework: Cost model templates, performance metrics, risk exposure scoring, ROI calculator
- Alternative evaluation template: Structured comparison grid for rejected options with rejection rationale
- Dependency mapping tool: Relationship matrix and rollback complexity assessment
- Executive summary template: One-page format for architecture review boards and strategic presentations
Who It's For
- Enterprise Architects — Document architectural decisions with quantified impact for review boards and strategic planning
- Platform/Infrastructure Leaders — Standardize technical decisions across large organizations with compliance governance
- Chief Technology Officers — Create audit trails for regulatory compliance and architectural governance
- Solution Architects — Communicate trade-offs to non-technical stakeholders using impact matrices and cost models
- Compliance and Security Teams — Validate architectural choices against regulatory frameworks before implementation
Best For
- Microservices vs. monolith decisions — Evaluate architectural migration with stakeholder and compliance impact
- Cloud or data residency choices — Document multi-region, hybrid, or on-premise decisions with GDPR/HIPAA validation
- Technology selection decisions — Compare databases, messaging systems, or orchestration platforms with cost and risk models
- Organizational scaling decisions — Map architectural choices that span multiple teams with dependency and learning-curve impact
- Major infrastructure overhauls — Create governance-ready documentation for ERP, data warehouse, or security architecture
- Regulatory compliance architecture — Design systems meeting SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS with documented trade-off analysis







