Backfill the decision record for an architecture the code already encodes
A decision the code has encoded for two years and nobody wrote down, recorded with its context and consequences.
The ticket
Write the decision record for an architectural choice the codebase already reflects.
Acceptance criteria
- The record states the context, the decision, and the consequences
- It cites the code that implements it
- Alternatives that were rejected are named
- It is filed with the project's other records
What lands as proof
A record that cites real code paths, so a reader can check it against the system rather than trust it.
Why teams defer it
- The people who made the decision remember the outcome and not the alternatives, so reconstructing it takes interviews.
- Nothing breaks without it, which means it loses every prioritisation it enters.
Questions
- What does the agent actually change?
- The ticket is scoped to one outcome: write the decision record for an architectural choice the codebase already reflects. Work that serves that outcome is in scope, and anything outside it is left for a separate ticket, so the pull request stays reviewable.
- How do I know the work is done?
- The pull request carries the evidence, not only the diff. Here that means the record cites the code paths it describes, so a reviewer can confirm the result without reproducing the work locally.
- How much oversight does this need?
- The run stops once the plan is written. Somebody reads the approach and approves it before any code exists, which is the cheapest moment to redirect the work.