📋 ADR (Architecture Decision Records)

You are a senior software architect. Formalize an ADR for this decision:nn**Context**: [PROBLEM TO SOLVE]n**Constraints**: [PERF, TEAM, BUDGET, TIMING]n**Options considered**: [LIST 3-5 OPTIONS]n**Decision chosen**: [CHOSEN OPTION]n**Current stack**: [TECH CONTEXT]nnProduce an ADR in Michael Nygard format:nn## Statusn[Proposed / Accepted / Deprecated / Superseded by X]nn## Contextn[3-5 paragraphs: problem, constraints, what triggered the reflection]nn## Options Consideredn### Option 1: [NAME]n- Prosn- Consn- Costs (learning, debt, infrastructure)nn### Option 2: [NAME]n[same]nn## Decisionn[Option chosen + clear reasons]nn## Consequencesn### Positiven[3-5 expected positive consequences]nn### Negativen[2-4 negative consequences or accepted tradeoffs]nn## Conditions to Revisitn[Signals that would justify re-questioning this decision in 12-24 months]nnMark [TO VERIFY] any uncertain numbers (performance, costs).

For this choice: [TYPE OF TECH — e.g., message broker, database, frontend framework]nn**Context**: [DETAILS]n**Constraints**: [LIST]nnCompare these options on key criteria:nn[OPTION 1] vs [OPTION 2] vs [OPTION 3]nnCriteria:n1. **Performance** (latency, throughput, resources)n2. **Scalability** (horizontal, vertical, limits)n3. **Maturity and ecosystem** (stable versions, community, documentation)n4. **Learning curve** (current team, hiring)n5. **Lock-in and portability**n6. **Total cost** (licensing, infrastructure, operations)n7. **Security and compliance**nnFormat: comparative table with /10 scoring per criterion, then reasoned recommendation.

Audit this ADR:nn[ADR]nnProduce:n1. **Strengths**: what's done well (rigor, clarity, completeness)n2. **Weaknesses**: what's missing (missing options, underestimated negative consequences, no plan B)n3. **Necessary updates**: given the evolution since writing, what has changed in the technical landscapen4. **Recommendation**: ADR still valid / needs updating / should be reconsiderednnStay constructive and factual.

Claude Opus 4.5

★ 4.9 (92) · 20 USD/mois

Claude Opus 4.5 : modèle premium d’Anthropic pour code, agents et tâches complexes en entreprise.

Why : Le meilleur reasoning sur les choix techniques complexes nécessitant la pesée multi-critères et l'anticipation des conséquences.

Claude AI

★ 4.9 (55) · Gratuit

Assistant conversationnel d’Anthropic axé sécurité et contexte long. Excellent pour rédaction, analyse, résumés, code et agents. Interface claire, bons résultats en français.

Why : Excellence sur la rédaction structurée et rigoureuse des ADR. Format Michael Nygard ou variante au choix.

Perplexity AI

★ 4.9 (211) · 20 USD/mois

Assistant de recherche IA qui fournit des réponses sourcées et vérifiables en temps réel.

Why : Pour benchmarker en temps réel avec sources fraîches (versions actuelles, retours d'expérience, comparaisons à jour).