Architect Clarify Agent Skill

architect-clarify

What this skill does

Identify underspecified areas in existing ADRs and refine them through targeted clarification questions. Ensure ADRs are complete, consistent, and ready for architecture generation.

You act as an Architecture Reviewer ensuring ADR quality by:

• Validating ADR completeness against MADR standards
• Identifying gaps in consequences or alternatives
• Detecting conflicts between ADRs or with constitution
• Refining decisions through targeted clarification

When to use

Use this skill:

• After /architect-init: Refine initial ADRs before architecture generation
• ADR Review: Validate ADRs before major milestones
• New Team Member: Ensure ADRs make sense to fresh eyes
• Conflict Resolution: Resolve identified inconsistencies

Do not use this skill when:

• No ADRs exist: Use /architect-init first to create ADRs
• Brownfield projects: Use /architect-init to reverse-engineer ADRs from code

Process

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Examples of User Input:

• "Focus on data architecture decisions - we're reconsidering database choice"
• "Security ADRs need more detail for compliance review"
• "ADR-003 consequences seem incomplete"
• Empty input: Review all ADRs for completeness

Goal

Identify underspecified areas in existing ADRs and refine them through targeted clarification questions. Ensure ADRs are complete, consistent, and ready for architecture generation.

ADR Quality Checklist

Each ADR should have:

• [ ] Clear context explaining the problem/opportunity
• [ ] Explicit decision statement
• [ ] Positive AND negative consequences
• [ ] Common Alternatives documented (neutral trade-offs, not "Rejected because")
• [ ] Risks identified with mitigation strategies
• [ ] Status is accurate (Proposed/Accepted/Deprecated/Superseded/Discovered)
• [ ] No conflicts with other ADRs
• [ ] Alignment with constitution principles
• [ ] No fabricated rejection rationale for reverse-engineered ADRs

Outline

• Load Current State: Parse ADRs from {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/ (individual file format) and {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/memory/constitution.md

IMPORTANT - Path Resolution:

• The setup script outputs REPO_ROOT - use this to determine the correct paths
• REPO_ROOT is found by searching upward from current directory for .adlc directory
• NEVER use relative paths like .adlc/drafts/adr.md - always use {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/ADR-{NNN}.md
• The setup script reads individual ADR files from the adr/ directory
• When running from a subdirectory (e.g., a subproject directory), .adlc may be in the parent directory

• Analyze ADRs: Check each ADR against quality checklist
• Identify Gaps: List areas needing clarification
• Interactive Refinement: Ask targeted questions to fill gaps
• Update ADRs: Write refined ADRs back to file

Execution Steps

Phase 1: Context Loading

Objective: Establish current ADR state

• Run Prerequisites Script:
• Execute scripts/bash/setup-architect.sh from repo root
• Parse JSON for paths to memory files
• Handle errors gracefully if files don't exist

• Load ADR File:
• Read {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/adr.md for the ADR list
• Read individual ADRs from {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/ADR-{NNN}.md
• Count total ADRs and identify status distribution

• Load Constitution:
• Read {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/memory/constitution.md if it exists
• Extract principles for alignment checking
• Note governance constraints

• User Focus:
• If user specified specific ADRs or areas, narrow scope
• Otherwise, review all ADRs

Phase 2: ADR Analysis

Objective: Identify quality gaps in each ADR

Quality Dimensions to Check

• Context Completeness:
• Is the problem clearly stated?
• Are the forces/drivers documented?
• Is the decision scope clear?

• Decision Clarity:
• Is the decision actionable?
• Are implementation implications clear?
• Can this decision be validated/tested?

• Consequence Coverage:
• Are positive outcomes documented?
• Are negative trade-offs acknowledged?
• Are risks identified with mitigations?

• Alternatives Documentation:
• Are at least 2 alternatives listed?
• Is rejection reasoning clear for each?
• Were reasonable options considered?

• Cross-ADR Consistency:
• Do decisions conflict with other ADRs?
• Are dependencies between ADRs documented?
• Is terminology consistent?

• Constitution Alignment:
• Does decision comply with MUST principles?
• Are SHOULD principles addressed?
• Are violations explicitly justified?

Phase 2.5: Risks & Gaps Analysis (Cross-Cutting)

Objective: Identify operational gaps, technical debt, SPOFs, and security concerns NOT documented across all views

Analysis Dimensions:

| Dimension | Views to Check | What to Look For |

|-----------|---------------|------------------|

| Operational Gaps | Operational (3.7), Deployment (3.6) | Missing monitoring, undefined on-call, no runbooks, unclear rollback |

| Technical Debt | Development (3.5), Information (3.3) | Deprecated dependencies, no tests, legacy code, schema debt |

| Single Points of Failure | Deployment (3.6), Concurrency (3.4) | Single DB instance, no redundancy, critical path bottlenecks |

| Security Concerns | All views | Unencrypted data, no auth, exposed secrets, missing audit trails |

Gap Identification Process:

• Scan Each View: Check if view exists, identify missing critical sections, flag [TODO]/[TBD] areas
• Cross-View Analysis: Find inconsistencies (e.g., "high availability" stated but single instance shown)
• Risk Severity: CRITICAL (outage/breach/loss), HIGH (operational burden), MEDIUM (debt), LOW (documentation)

Gap ID Format: Section-based (e.g., 3.6.1 = Deployment View, gap #1)

Phase 2.6: Constitution Cross-Reference

Objective: Check ADRs against constitution for duplication and compliance

Analysis:

• Duplication Check: Does ADR restate a constitutional principle? Is decision already mandated?
• Compliance Check: Does decision violate MUST principles? Ignore SHOULD without justification?
• Override Classification: Is this an intentional deviation? Justified sufficiently?

Constitution Cross-Reference Table:

| Issue Type | ADR | Constitution Principle | Action Required |

|------------|-----|----------------------|-----------------|

| Duplicate | ADR-002 | §DataStorage mandates PostgreSQL | Remove or convert to reference |

| Violation | ADR-003 | §Security requires JWT | Add override justification or change |

| Unclear | ADR-004 | Silent on caching | Clarify relationship |

Phase 3: Gap Identification

Objective: Prioritize clarification needs

Generate a gap report:

## ADR Clarification Report

### Summary
- Total ADRs: [N]
- Complete: [N]
- Needs Clarification: [N]

### Gaps by ADR

| ADR | Title | Gap Type | Severity | Priority |
|-----|-------|----------|----------|----------|
| ADR-001 | [Title] | Missing alternatives | HIGH | 1 |
| ADR-002 | [Title] | Incomplete consequences | MEDIUM | 2 |

### Cross-ADR Issues

| Issue | ADRs Affected | Description |
|-------|---------------|-------------|
| [Conflict] | ADR-001, ADR-003 | [Description of conflict] |

Gap Prioritization

• CRITICAL: Constitution violations, missing decision statement
• HIGH: No alternatives documented, missing consequences
• MEDIUM: Incomplete risks, unclear context
• LOW: Minor phrasing improvements, optional details

Phase 4: Interactive Refinement

Objective: Fill gaps through targeted questions

Question Format

For each gap requiring clarification:

## Clarification [N]: [ADR-XXX] - [Gap Type]

**Current State**: 
[Quote current ADR content]

**Gap Identified**: 
[Explain what's missing or unclear]

**Question**:
[Specific question to address the gap]

**Suggested Options** (if applicable):

| Option | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| A | [Option A] |
| B | [Option B] |
| C | [Custom response] |

Reply with your choice or provide additional context.

Constitution Cross-Reference Questions

When constitution issues are detected:

For Duplicates:

## Clarification [N]: Constitution Duplication Detected

**Question**: How should this duplicate ADR be handled?

**ADR**: ADR-XXX - [Title]
**Constitution Principle**: §[Section] - [Principle Name]
**Issue**: This ADR documents a decision already mandated by constitution

**Options**:
| Option | Action | Result |
|--------|--------|--------|
| A | Remove ADR | Decision covered by constitution only |
| B | Convert to Reference | Keep ADR as "See Constitution §X" |
| C | Add Context | Keep ADR with "Aligns with Constitution §X" |
| D | Extend | Keep ADR as "Extends Constitution §X" |

Reply with your choice (A/B/C/D).

For Violations (Option A PRIMARY - Amend Constitution):

## Clarification [N]: Constitution Violation Detected ⭐

**Question**: How should this constitutional violation be resolved?

**ADR**: ADR-XXX - [Title]
**Decision**: [What the ADR decides]
**Constitution Principle**: §[Section] - [Principle]
**Conflict**: [How they conflict]

**The constitution should evolve with the project's needs.**

**⭐ RECOMMENDED: A. Amend Constitution**
Update constitution §[Section] to accommodate this decision. This establishes a new principle for future decisions.

**Alternative Options**:
B. Override in ADR - Document justification for deviation
C. Revise ADR - Change decision to comply with constitution
D. Remove ADR - Delete and follow existing constitution

**Consider Amendment If**:
- [ ] This decision will be used again in the future
- [ ] Team's approach has evolved since constitution was written
- [ ] Existing principle is too restrictive for current needs

**Amendment Text**: [If choosing A, provide the specific constitutional amendment]

Reply with: "A [amendment text]" or "B/C/D [reasoning]"

Clarification Rules

• Present one clarification at a time
• Prioritize by severity - address CRITICAL/HIGH gaps first
• For constitution violations, Option A (Amend) is PRIMARY
• Limit to 5 clarifications per session (increased to 10 if architecture present)
• Allow user to skip non-critical clarifications
• Summarize changes after each answer
• User can say "done" to end clarification early

Phase 5: ADR Updates

Objective: Write refined ADRs back to file

• Apply Clarifications:
• Update ADR sections with new content
• Preserve structure and formatting
• Update "Last Updated" timestamps

• Resolve Conflicts:
• If cross-ADR conflicts were found, propose resolution
• Document decision to favor one ADR over another
• Add cross-references between related ADRs

• Update Index:
• Refresh ADR index table if titles changed
• Update status if applicable

• Write File:
• Atomic write to individual {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/ADR-{NNN}.md files
• Preserve any ADRs that weren't modified
• The setup script auto-regenerates adr.md and adr.md index after updates

Phase 5.5: ADR Approval ⭐

Objective: Get user confirmation to approve ADRs before architecture generation

This step is critical because implement only processes ADRs with "Accepted" status. ADRs with "Discovered" or "Proposed" status will be skipped.

Approval Request

## ADR Approval ⭐

**Total ADRs**: [N]
**Status Distribution**:
- Accepted: [N]
- Proposed: [N]
- Discovered: [N]

**⚠️ Important**: Only "Accepted" ADRs will be processed by `/architect-implement`

### Options

| Option | Action |
|--------|--------|
| A | Accept All - Change Proposed/Discovered → Accepted |
| B | Review Specific - Select individual ADRs to accept |
| C | Defer - Keep current status, decide later |

**Note**: You can also run `/architect-clarify` again later to approve additional ADRs.

Reply with A, B, or C (or "done" to skip).

Bulk Approval (Option A)

If user chooses Option A:

## Confirm Bulk Approval

Change [N] ADRs from Proposed/Discovered → Accepted?

| ADR | Current Status | New Status |
|-----|----------------|-------------|
| ADR-001 | Proposed | Accepted |
| ADR-002 | Discovered | Accepted |

Reply with "yes" to confirm or "no" to cancel.

Selective Approval (Option B)

If user chooses Option B, present ADRs one-by-one:

## ADR Approval: ADR-XXX

**Title**: [Title]
**Current Status**: [Proposed/Discovered]
**Context**: [Brief summary]

**Options**:
| Option | Action |
|--------|--------|
| A | Accept - Change to "Accepted" |
| B | Keep - Keep current status |
| C | Skip - Move to next ADR |

Reply with A, B, or C for ADR-XXX.

Post-Approval

After approval (or if user chooses C to defer):

## ADRs Approved

**Status Changes Applied**:
- ADR-001: Proposed → Accepted
- ADR-002: Discovered → Accepted
- ADR-007: Kept as Proposed

**Ready for Implementation**:
- Accepted ADRs: [N]
- Pending Approval: [N]

Run `/architect-implement` to generate AD.md from accepted ADRs.

Post-Approval State Update

After approval, you MUST write the workflow state file. Create the directory if it doesn't exist, then write {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/architect/state.json:

mkdir -p {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/architect

Write this JSON content to the file (replace [N] with the actual count of approved ADRs and the timestamp with the current time):

{
  "workflow": {
    "clarify_completed": true,
    "clarify_completed_at": "2024-01-20T10:30:00Z",
    "adrs_approved_count": [N],
    "implement_started": false,
    "implement_started_at": null
  }
}

IMPORTANT: This workflow state file is REQUIRED before /architect-implement will execute.

The implement command checks this state during pre-flight validation. If you skip this step, the implement command will halt with a validation error.

Key Rules

Non-Destructive Refinement

• Never delete existing ADRs without explicit user approval
• Preserve original intent when updating wording
• Add, don't replace consequences and alternatives
• Mark changes with updated timestamps

Focused Clarification

• Ask one question at a time
• Make questions specific and answerable
• Provide suggested options when possible
• Respect user's time - limit to 5 clarifications

Constitution Authority

• Constitution violations are always flagged
• ADRs cannot override MUST principles without explicit justification
• Suggest constitution updates if conflict is systemic

Quality Over Quantity

• Focus on material gaps that affect implementation
• Skip cosmetic improvements unless user requests
• Defer minor issues if major gaps remain

Completion Report

After clarification ends (all gaps addressed or user signals "done"):

## ADR Clarification Complete

**Changes Made**:
- ADR-001: Updated consequences section
- ADR-002: Added Common Alternatives (neutral trade-offs)
- ADR-003: Resolved conflict with ADR-001
- Constitution: Amended §DataStorage to allow NoSQL for document flexibility

**Risks & Gaps Status**:
- Critical gaps identified: [N] → [N resolved]
- High priority gaps: [N] → [N resolved]
- Cross-view inconsistencies: [N] → [N resolved]
- Integration with AD sections: [N updates]

**Remaining Gaps** (deferred):
- 3.6.2: Minor operational documentation (LOW)

**Cross-ADR Consistency**: ✅ Verified

**Constitution Alignment**:
- Duplicates resolved: [N]
- Violations addressed: [N]
- Constitution amended: [N] (if applicable)
- References added: [N]

**Recommended Next Steps**:
1. Review updated ADRs in `{REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/adr.md`
2. Run `/architect-implement` to generate AD.md
3. Or run `/architect-specify` to create new ADRs for additional decisions

Workflow Status

⚠️ Required: You MUST run /architect-clarify before /architect-implement to approve ADRs.

Status Workflow:

• init → "Discovered" (brownfield)
• specify → "Proposed" (greenfield)
• clarify → ask to approve → "Accepted" ⭐
• implement → only reads "Accepted", skips Discovered/Proposed

Note: Do NOT invent intermediate statuses like "Validated". ADRs go directly from Discovered/Proposed → Accepted upon user approval.

Context

$ARGUMENTS

Next Steps

After clarify completes, run /architect-implement to generate the Architecture Description (AD.md).

Only ADRs with status Accepted are included in the architecture generation. If needed, re-run this skill to approve additional ADRs before proceeding.

Verification

Concrete outputs of this skill:

• ADR files updated at {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/ADR-{NNN}.md with clarified content
• ADR index refreshed at {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/drafts/adr/adr.md
• Constitution updated if amendments were approved
• Workflow state written to {REPO_ROOT}/.adlc/architect/state.json with clarify_completed: true
• At least one ADR status changed to Accepted, or explicit deferral recorded
• Cross-ADR conflicts resolved or documented
• Gap report showing critical/high gaps addressed