neohaskell-adr-template - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: neohaskell-adr-template description: ADR (Architecture Decision Record) template for NeoHaskell. Use when creating a new ADR, drafting a decision document, or starting a new feature proposal. Triggers on 'new ADR', 'create ADR', 'architecture decision', 'decision record', 'feature proposal', 'ADR draft'.

NeoHaskell ADR Template

Use this skill when creating Architecture Decision Records for the NeoHaskell project. ADRs document significant architectural decisions and live in docs/decisions/.

When to Write an ADR

Write an ADR when:

Renaming or restructuring modules
Changing the public API of Core
Adding new EventStore implementations
Modifying the command execution flow
Changing code style conventions
Adding significant new infrastructure (new types in nhcore, new service patterns)

Do NOT write an ADR for:

Bug fixes
Performance improvements without API changes
Documentation updates
Adding new commands or entities (domain logic)

Numbering Convention

ADRs are numbered sequentially with 4-digit zero-padding: NNNN-short-description.md

To determine the next number:

ls docs/decisions/*.md | tail -1

File naming: Use lowercase kebab-case for the description slug.

Examples:

0041-decimal-arithmetic-operations.md
0042-websocket-transport-adapter.md

ADR Template

# ADR-NNNN: [Descriptive Title]

## Status

Proposed

## Context

[Why we needed to make this decision. Include:]

### Current State

[What exists today. What problem or gap this addresses.]

### Use Cases

- [Concrete use case 1]
- [Concrete use case 2]
- [Concrete use case 3]

### Design Goals

1. [Goal 1 with rationale]
2. [Goal 2 with rationale]
3. [Goal 3 with rationale]

### GitHub Issue

- [#NNN: Issue Title](https://github.com/neohaskell/NeoHaskell/issues/NNN)

## Decision

### 1. [First Decision Point]

[Explanation of what was decided and why]

| Candidate | Verdict | Rationale |
|-----------|---------|-----------|
| Option A  | Rejected | [Why] |
| Option B  | **Chosen** | [Why] |

### 2. [Second Decision Point]

[More decisions...]

### N. Type Definitions

```haskell
-- Core type definition
data MyType = MyType
  { field1 :: !Text
  , field2 :: !Int
  }
  deriving (Eq, Show, Generic)

N+1. Public API

-- Key functions
new :: Config -> Task CreateError MyType
transform :: MyType -> TransformResult

Consequences

Positive

[Benefit 1]
[Benefit 2]

Negative

[Drawback 1]
[Drawback 2]

Risks

[Risk 1]
[Risk 2]

Mitigations

[Mitigation for risk 1]
[Mitigation for risk 2]

References


## Field-by-Field Guidance

### Title (`# ADR-NNNN: [Title]`)

- Be specific and action-oriented
- Include the concept name, not just the category

| Good | Bad |
|------|-----|
| `Decimal Type for Financial Calculations` | `New Type` |
| `OAuth2 Provider Integration Architecture` | `OAuth2 Support` |
| `WebTransport Request Body Size Coordination` | `Request Body Changes` |
| `Redacted Type for Sensitive Data` | `Security Improvement` |

### Status

Always start as `Proposed`. Only the maintainer changes status.

| Status | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| `Proposed` | Under discussion, not yet approved |
| `Accepted` | Approved and implemented |
| `Deprecated` | No longer relevant |
| `Superseded by ADR-XXXX` | Replaced by a newer decision |

### Context Section

This is the "why" — explain the problem, not the solution.

**Must include:**
- Current state (what exists today)
- The gap or problem being addressed
- At least 2-3 concrete use cases
- Design goals (numbered, with rationale)
- GitHub issue link (if one exists)

**Good context writing:**
> "NeoHaskell lacks a decimal or fixed-point number type for precise financial calculations. This gap forces downstream applications to use workarounds that are error-prone and verbose."

**Bad context writing:**
> "We need a decimal type."

### Decision Section

This is the "what" — document each decision point separately.

**Structure each sub-decision as:**
1. A clear heading (`### N. Decision Point Name`)
2. What was decided
3. Why — with alternatives considered in a comparison table
4. Code examples showing the chosen approach

**Always include:**
- Type definitions with NeoHaskell conventions (strict fields, descriptive type params)
- Module placement (`core/[directory]/Module.hs`)
- Public API signatures
- Comparison tables for rejected alternatives

### Consequences Section

Split into **Positive**, **Negative**, **Risks**, and **Mitigations** subsections.

**Good consequence writing:**
> "**Positive**: Jess can use `Decimal.fromFloat 12.50` without understanding fixed-point arithmetic internals."

**Bad consequence writing:**
> "**Positive**: Better."

### References Section

Link to:
- GitHub issues (`[#NNN: Title](https://github.com/neohaskell/NeoHaskell/issues/NNN)`)
- Related ADRs (`[ADR-XXXX: Title](XXXX-slug.md)`)
- Source files (`[path/to/file.hs](../../path/to/file.hs)`)
- External RFCs or standards (if relevant)

## Updating the README Index

After creating an ADR, add it to the index table in `docs/decisions/README.md`:

```markdown
| [NNNN](NNNN-slug.md) | Title | Proposed |

Insert it in numerical order at the end of the table.

NeoHaskell-Specific ADR Considerations

When writing ADRs for NeoHaskell features:

Jess persona: Consider how the decision affects Jess (junior dev, 15-30 min/day). Every API choice must pass the "Jess at 10 PM" test.
Three principles: Evaluate against Least Astonishment, Developer Happiness, and Least Effort.
Module placement: Specify which hs-source-dir the new module belongs in (core, service, json, schema, etc.).
Re-export from Core: If the type is foundational, note that it must be re-exported from Core.hs.
Type families: If adding entity/event types, specify the type family instances (EntityOf, EventOf, NameOf).
Serialization: Specify JSON representation. Prefer toEncoding over toJSON for performance.
Code style: All code examples in the ADR MUST follow NeoHaskell style (pipes, do-blocks, case, qualified imports, descriptive type params). Load the neohaskell-style-guide skill if unsure.