e1c7c7a50e
* Add prompts for .NET best practices, design pattern review, and GitHub Copilot suggestions - Introduced a comprehensive prompt for ensuring .NET/C# code adheres to best practices, covering documentation, design patterns, dependency injection, resource management, async patterns, testing standards, configuration, AI integration, error handling, performance, security, and code quality. - Added a prompt for reviewing C#/.NET code for design pattern implementation, providing a checklist for required patterns, architecture, best practices, SOLID principles, performance, maintainability, testability, security, documentation, code clarity, and clean code. - Created prompts for suggesting relevant GitHub Copilot chatmodes and prompts based on the current repository context, including a structured process for fetching available chatmodes/prompts, scanning local files, and presenting options with rationale. - Developed a prompt for updating Azure Verified Modules (AVM) in Bicep files, detailing the process for scanning, checking for updates, validating, and handling breaking changes. - Implemented a prompt for updating implementation plans with new requirements, ensuring machine-readable output and adherence to a strict template. - Added a prompt for updating the llms.txt file to reflect changes in documentation or specifications, focusing on compliance with the llmstxt specification. - Created a prompt for updating markdown file indices with files from specified folders, including options for table structures and update strategies. - Developed a prompt for updating object-oriented component documentation, following industry best practices and ensuring alignment with current implementations. - Added a prompt for updating specification files, emphasizing clarity, structure, and compliance with established documentation standards. * CHANGE: Update implementation plan prompt formatting - Renamed prompt title for clarity. - Added spacing for improved readability. - Enhanced structure to ensure compliance with template validation rules. * CHANGE: Fix typo in .NET best practices prompt - Corrected "soltion" to "solution" in the prompt description.
98 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
98 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
mode: 'agent'
|
|
description: 'Create an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) document for AI-optimized decision documentation.'
|
|
tools: ['changes', 'codebase', 'editFiles', 'extensions', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'problems', 'runTasks', 'search', 'searchResults', 'terminalLastCommand', 'terminalSelection', 'testFailure', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI']
|
|
---
|
|
# Create Architectural Decision Record
|
|
|
|
Create an ADR document for `${input:DecisionTitle}` using structured formatting optimized for AI consumption and human readability.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
- **Context**: `${input:Context}`
|
|
- **Decision**: `${input:Decision}`
|
|
- **Alternatives**: `${input:Alternatives}`
|
|
- **Stakeholders**: `${input:Stakeholders}`
|
|
|
|
## Input Validation
|
|
If any of the required inputs are not provided or cannot be determined from the conversation history, ask the user to provide the missing information before proceeding with ADR generation.
|
|
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
|
|
- Use precise, unambiguous language
|
|
- Follow standardized ADR format with front matter
|
|
- Include both positive and negative consequences
|
|
- Document alternatives with rejection rationale
|
|
- Structure for machine parsing and human reference
|
|
- Use coded bullet points (3-4 letter codes + 3-digit numbers) for multi-item sections
|
|
|
|
The ADR must be saved in the `/docs/adr/` directory using the naming convention: `adr-NNNN-[title-slug].md`, where NNNN is the next sequential 4-digit number (e.g., `adr-0001-database-selection.md`).
|
|
|
|
## Required Documentation Structure
|
|
|
|
The documentation file must follow the template below, ensuring that all sections are filled out appropriately. The front matter for the markdown should be structured correctly as per the example following:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
---
|
|
title: "ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]"
|
|
status: "Proposed"
|
|
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
|
|
authors: "[Stakeholder Names/Roles]"
|
|
tags: ["architecture", "decision"]
|
|
supersedes: ""
|
|
superseded_by: ""
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]
|
|
|
|
## Status
|
|
|
|
**Proposed** | Accepted | Rejected | Superseded | Deprecated
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
[Problem statement, technical constraints, business requirements, and environmental factors requiring this decision.]
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
[Chosen solution with clear rationale for selection.]
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
### Positive
|
|
|
|
- **POS-001**: [Beneficial outcomes and advantages]
|
|
- **POS-002**: [Performance, maintainability, scalability improvements]
|
|
- **POS-003**: [Alignment with architectural principles]
|
|
|
|
### Negative
|
|
|
|
- **NEG-001**: [Trade-offs, limitations, drawbacks]
|
|
- **NEG-002**: [Technical debt or complexity introduced]
|
|
- **NEG-003**: [Risks and future challenges]
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
|
|
### [Alternative 1 Name]
|
|
|
|
- **ALT-001**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
|
|
- **ALT-002**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]
|
|
|
|
### [Alternative 2 Name]
|
|
|
|
- **ALT-003**: **Description**: [Brief technical description]
|
|
- **ALT-004**: **Rejection Reason**: [Why this option was not selected]
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Notes
|
|
|
|
- **IMP-001**: [Key implementation considerations]
|
|
- **IMP-002**: [Migration or rollout strategy if applicable]
|
|
- **IMP-003**: [Monitoring and success criteria]
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- **REF-001**: [Related ADRs]
|
|
- **REF-002**: [External documentation]
|
|
- **REF-003**: [Standards or frameworks referenced]
|
|
```
|