---
id: ADR-NNN
title: "<Short decision in imperative form>"
status: proposed
date: YYYY-MM-DD
phase: ""
deciders: ["@ThibautMelen"]
tags: []
affects_crates: []
affects_layers: []
supersedes: []
superseded_by: []
related: []
requires: []
enables: []
amends: []
fci: []
inv: []
shadow_zones: []
nika_codes: []
timeline: ""
follow_ups: []
---

# ADR-NNN: <Short decision in imperative form>

## Context

What is the problem we're solving? What forces are in play -- technical,
organizational, project-specific? Keep it factual. ~3-6 sentences.

Include grep-verifiable evidence (file paths, commit SHAs, LOC counts) if the
context references the codebase. An ADR should be auditable in 3 years.

## Decision

The decision in one clear sentence, then details. What did we choose? What did
we explicitly reject? Cite specific types, modules, or patterns when concrete.

## Consequences

### Positive
- Concrete wins from this decision.
- Use bullets. No vague adjectives.

### Negative
- Honest trade-offs. Every decision has costs.
- Include the cost we're accepting (not hypothetical).

### Neutral
- Ripple effects that are neither wins nor losses but worth noting.

## Evidence / Affected code

- `path/to/file.rs:line` -- what lives here
- Commit `abc1234` -- when this first shipped
- Related crate: `nika-foo`

## Alternatives considered

### Alt A -- <name>
Short description. Why rejected.

### Alt B -- <name>
Short description. Why rejected.

## Related

- ADR-XXX (supersedes / is-superseded-by / complements)
- `docs/architecture/<relevant-doc>.md`
- External references (papers, RFC numbers, rust-analyzer patterns, etc.)

## Notes

Any follow-ups, open questions, or review triggers. When should we revisit?
