{"enrichment":{"faq":[{"a":"adr-critique systematically reviews existing or inherited ADRs to identify violations of shared rules, gaps in business-to-architecture reasoning, and conflicts with neighboring decisions or LikeC4 models. Each issue surfaces as a single flag requiring architect sign-off before moving to the next, ensuring quality without bulk rewrites.","q":"What does adr-critique do?"},{"a":"adr-critique audits your ADR corpus by scanning each record against rule violations, missing business-to-architecture reasoning, and consistency gaps. It flags issues one at a time so your team can review and sign off on each before proceeding, making cleanup deliberate and traceable rather than automated.","q":"How do I audit our architecture decision records?"},{"a":"Yes. adr-critique identifies filler, hedging language, and drift in architecture decision documents. It surfaces vague or non-committal phrasing that weakens decision clarity, helping you tighten reasoning and remove unnecessary padding from your ADR corpus.","q":"Can adr-critique detect filler in architecture decisions?"},{"a":"adr-critique can validate ADR graph relationships and check alignment with LikeC4 models. This helps you spot conflicts between neighboring decisions and ensure your architecture documentation stays consistent with your system model.","q":"Does adr-critique validate ADR graph relationships?"},{"a":"adr-critique is released under the MIT license, allowing free use, modification, and distribution in both open-source and commercial projects.","q":"What license does adr-critique use?"},{"a":"adr-critique is designed to critique legacy and inherited ADRs, including those imported from other sources or generated by LLMs. It performs line-by-line review to catch quality issues, missing reasoning, and violations before you adopt them into your decision log.","q":"Can adr-critique review legacy or imported ADRs?"}],"shadow_tags":["decision-audit","quality-assurance","architecture-governance","legacy-review","reasoning-validation","consistency-check","document-critique","rule-enforcement","corpus-management"],"summary_rewrite":"adr-critique systematically reviews existing or inherited ADRs to identify violations of shared rules, gaps in business-to-architecture reasoning, and conflicts with neighboring decisions or LikeC4 models. Each issue surfaces as a single flag requiring architect sign-off before moving to the next, ensuring quality without bulk rewrites."},"files":[{"bytes":7814,"path":"plugins/doc-master/skills/adr-critique/SKILL.md","sha256":"eb55a901392b26da8946fe59dc8d4f3e1afc712a44067dd0390f76cd0ec9e32b","url":"https://skillfed.io/files/JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-critique/4fbf0236/SKILL.md"}],"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-critique","links":{"html":"https://skillfed.io/JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-critique","md":"https://skillfed.io/JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-critique.md","repo":"https://github.com/JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace"},"meta":{"agents_supported":[],"first_seen":"2026-07-28","forks":10,"language":"Shell","last_updated":"2026-06-18","license":"MIT","name":"adr-critique","publisher":"JosiahSiegel","stars":49},"relations":{"categories":["architecture","governance","documentation"],"similar":[{"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-drafting"},{"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-discovery"},{"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/doc-diagnostic"},{"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/c4-model"},{"id":"JosiahSiegel/claude-plugin-marketplace/adr-backfill"},{"id":"ruvnet/ruflo/adr-index"},{"id":"giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/adr-drafting"},{"id":"event-catalog/skills/catalog-documentation-creator"},{"id":"nahisaho/MUSUBI/system-architect"},{"id":"nWave-ai/nWave/nw-design"}]},"slug":{"owner":"JosiahSiegel","repo":"claude-plugin-marketplace","skill":"adr-critique"},"version":"4fbf0236"}