Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Give every Architecture Decision Record (ADR) an owner, a review date, and a clear status; validate those fields automatically; and run a scheduled check that identifies records whose review dates have passed. A date is a prompt to reassess a decision, not proof that the decision is wrong. Make the review outcome visible and follow a written rule for whether changes clarify the existing ADR or require a linked, superseding record.
What an ADR review process needs to track
An ADR can remain technically accurate while the conditions around it change: policies, standards, dependencies, risks, or implementation details may no longer match the original reasoning. A useful review process makes responsibility and timing explicit, then gives overdue work somewhere to go.
- Owner: A named person or team responsible for maintaining the record and communicating changes. AWS guidance assigns owners an active maintenance role; version control also preserves who changed what and when. AWS Prescriptive Guidance: ADR process and The GDS Way: version control.
- Status: A consistent lifecycle value, such as proposed, accepted, superseded, or deprecated, defined by your repository’s policy.
- Decision date and review date: The first records when the decision was made; the second sets when someone should reassess it.
- Visibility: An index or catalogue should make the owner, status, last-reviewed date, and next review date easy to find. The Ministry of Justice Analytical Platform catalogue is one example of showing a last-reviewed date, review status, and owner. Ministry of Justice Analytical Platform ADR catalogue.
Keep ADRs in version control alongside the code or documentation they govern where practical. That makes the decision history reviewable and lets repository checks validate the records as part of ordinary change management.
Choose a review cadence that fits the decision
There is no single review interval established by the guidance cited here. The DGOV DTT Contributing Guide sets annual reviews as its default, while allowing a shorter interval when appropriate. It states: “Review dates are annual by default: set Review exactly one year after Date.” This is a policy example from the Western Australian Office of Digital Government’s Digital Transformation and Technology Unit, not a universal standard. DGOV DTT Contributing Guide.
#1 Best Overall
Set a shorter cycle when the decision depends on fast-changing policy, standards, vendors, dependencies, or risks. For a stable decision, an annual checkpoint may be sufficient. Document the rule and any exceptions in the repository so maintainers apply it consistently.
AWS advises reviewing an ADR at least once before acceptance and says the owner is responsible for rescheduling after rework. That is a pre-acceptance process recommendation; it does not establish a universal post-acceptance cadence. AWS Prescriptive Guidance ADR FAQ.
Rank #2
- Richard Finch, Welder's Handbook: A Complete Guide to MIG, TIG, Arc & Oxyacetylene Welding, "Completely Revised and Updated Edition!" paperback
Add review metadata to each ADR
Use one documented date format throughout the repository, such as ISO-style YYYY-MM-DD, and require a valid status and owner. The WA guide’s metadata convention includes Status, Date, and Review; it uses a review date one year after the decision date by default. Adapt the fields to your own lifecycle rather than assuming that this example is a cross-industry format.
Title: Use the shared event bus for service notifications
Status: Accepted
Date: 2026-04-10
Review: 2027-04-10
Owner: Platform teamThe exact field syntax depends on your ADR format. The important part is that metadata can be parsed reliably and the owner and review deadline are unambiguous. If a decision is superseded or intentionally exempt from routine review, represent that state explicitly instead of silently ignoring its date.
Rank #3
Make CI validate metadata and surface overdue records
CI should do more than check that a file exists. Validate required fields and dates on pull requests, and run a scheduled scan so a deadline is checked even when no one changes the repository. The WA contribution guide documents just check-metadata for checking status, date, and review metadata. Its documentation does not specify that the command rejects dates that have passed, so do not assume it enforces an overdue policy without verifying the behavior. DGOV DTT Contributing Guide.
Minimal checks to implement
- Parse the metadata for every ADR in scope.
- Reject missing required fields, invalid status values, and dates that do not parse.
- Check that the review date follows the decision date under your documented policy.
- Compare the review date with the current date and apply your chosen overdue behavior: warn, create or update a tracked issue, or fail the check.
- Report the ADR path, owner, review date, and status in CI output or the tracked issue.
- Run the same overdue scan on a schedule, not only on pull requests.
- Keep exceptions and links to superseding ADRs visible so overdue records are not hidden by exclusions.
These are implementation recommendations, not a tested workflow or a requirement imposed by the cited guides. A repository’s CI platform and ADR format determine the exact configuration.
Decide whether overdue records warn or block
A warning or issue keeps the work visible while allowing unrelated changes to proceed. A blocking gate makes missed reviews harder to ignore, but can prevent other work from merging when an owner is unavailable or an exception has not been recorded. Pick one behavior, define an exception path for cases such as archived or superseded decisions, and make that policy clear to contributors. The cited guidance does not prescribe a universal blocking rule.
Use the review to revalidate the decision
When a review comes due, assess whether the decision still fits the environment rather than merely changing the date. The WA guide’s checklist covers the record’s status, current policies and standards, external and related links, compliance mapping, implementation checklist, and clarity. DGOV DTT Contributing Guide.
Recommended Free Tools
- Does the status still describe what happened?
- Are the policy, standards, compliance requirements, and assumptions still current?
- Do external references and links to related ADRs still work and support the decision?
- Does the implementation guidance still match what teams have built?
- Have consequences, risks, or dependencies changed enough to revisit the choice?
- What was the review outcome, and when should the next review occur?
Record the outcome and advance the next review date when the review is complete. The WA guide says its review date advances by one year after review; for another cadence, apply the interval your team has documented.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Choose a consistent rule for accepted ADRs
Guidance differs on whether an accepted ADR should be edited. AWS and Microsoft treat accepted records as immutable or append-only and favor a new ADR that supersedes the earlier decision when the decision changes. The GDS Way allows some clarifications or added consequences to update an existing record, and recommends a new ADR when a decision changes after it has been partly implemented. AWS Prescriptive Guidance: ADR process, Microsoft: Architecture decision records, and The GDS Way: version control.
Choose the convention that fits your team and state it in the ADR guidance. Under an immutable approach, create a linked superseding ADR when the decision changes. Under a clarification-friendly approach, define what counts as clarification and when a new record is required. Do not silently revise history in a way that obscures what was originally decided.
Make overdue status visible to the people who can act
A metadata field alone does not ensure a review happens. Put review dates and owners in an index or catalogue, and show whether each review is current or overdue. The Ministry of Justice Analytical Platform catalogue provides a concrete example: when accessed on 4 October 2026, it showed “Last reviewed: 19 December 2024” and “Review status: Review overdue.” Its page illustrates visible status, not a required design for every project. Ministry of Justice Analytical Platform ADR catalogue.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →For decisions that have not been fully implemented across relevant teams, review can also be a standing discussion item. The GDS Way says: “Any ADRs that have not been fully implemented across all the relevant teams should be a topic for your regular discussion and review meeting.” The page’s own review date was 5 September 2026, which had passed by 4 October 2026; treat its advice as useful guidance rather than as evidence of a current universal standard. The GDS Way: Documenting architecture decisions.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
