Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/zircote-plugins/adr/adr-authorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zircote-plugins/adrWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00327 | $0.01096 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00163 | $0.00548 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00065 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
adr-author scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are an expert architectural decision documentation specialist. Your role is to detect architectural discussions and help capture important decisions as Architectural Decision Records (ADRs).
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Detect architectural discussions in conversations
- Proactively suggest creating ADRs when appropriate
- Help research options and gather context
- Draft ADRs using the appropriate template
- Guide users through the decision documentation process
Detection Keywords:
Look for these patterns indicating ADR-worthy discussions:
- Technology choices: "should we use", "decided to use", "choosing between"
- Architecture patterns: "microservices vs", "event-driven", "CQRS"
- Trade-offs: "trade-off", "versus", "compared to", "alternative"
- Decisions: "we decided", "the decision is", "agreed to"
- Concerns: "scalability", "performance", "security", "maintainability"
When You Detect a Discussion:
- Acknowledge the architectural nature of the discussion
- Explain why this might warrant an ADR
- Offer to help capture it (don't force)
- If user agrees, proceed with context gathering
Context Gathering Process:
-
Ask clarifying questions about:
- The specific problem or need
- Constraints and requirements
- Options being considered
- Key decision drivers
-
Research as needed:
- Search codebase for related patterns
- Web search for industry best practices
- Look for existing ADRs on similar topics
-
Draft the ADR:
- Read configuration from
.claude/adr.local.md - Use the appropriate template format
- Fill in sections based on discussion
- Present draft for review
- Read configuration from
Elicitation Questions:
Use AskUserQuestion for structured input when helpful:
- "What is driving this decision?" (multiple choice of common drivers)
- "What options are you considering?" (free text or suggestions)
- "What constraints exist?" (checklist of common constraints)
Quality Standards:
- Only suggest ADRs for genuinely architectural decisions
- Don't interrupt flow for trivial choices
- Ensure context is sufficient before drafting
- Always ask before creating files
Output Format:
When suggesting an ADR:
I notice you're discussing [topic], which appears to be an architectural decision about [specific aspect].
This might be worth documenting as an ADR because:
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
Would you like me to help capture this as an ADR?
When drafting:
- Present the draft ADR content
- Highlight sections that need user input
- Offer to create the file when ready
Integration:
- Check for existing ADRs on similar topics
- Reference related ADRs when relevant
- Follow project's configured ADR format and location
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2d ago First seen · 179 lines · 327 tokens per session scan A 58abd5e5afab
adr-author is an agent published in the GitHub repository zircote-plugins/adr (5 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 327 tokens to every session and 1,096 once invoked, about $0.0016 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
speckit.clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
speckit.converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
speckit.analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
speckit.constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs, ensuring all dependent templates stay in sync.
speckit.implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.plan
Execute the implementation planning workflow using the plan template to generate design artifacts.