Pocket v1.0
  • How to contribute
  • LICENSE
  • README
  • Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
    • Replace Badger KVStore
    • ADR_AI_NEW_PROMPT
    • ADR_AI_REFINE_PROMPT
    • [short title of solved problem and solution]
  • HotPocket - Pocket 1.0 Consensus Module Specification
  • Pocket Network 1.0 Cross Module Integrations
  • Pocket Network 1.0 Peer-To-Peer Module Pre-Planning Specification: Fast, Scalable, Highly Reliable a
  • persistence
    • RESEARCH
  • relay_mining
  • Pocket 1.0 Utility Module Specification
    • Ideas
  • .github
    • ISSUE_TEMPLATE
      • [BUG REPORT]
      • [FEATURE REQUEST]
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Summary
  • Problem Statement
  • [Background | Origin Document | Technical Story]
  • Decision Drivers
  • Considered Options
  • Decision Outcome
  • Positive Consequences
  • Negative Consequences
  • Pros and Cons of the Options
  • [option 1]
  • [option 2]
  • [option 3]
  • References
  1. Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

[short title of solved problem and solution]

PreviousADR_AI_REFINE_PROMPTNextHotPocket - Pocket 1.0 Consensus Module Specification

Last updated 2 years ago

  • Status: [draft | in review | changes needed | unsuitable | withdrawn | accepted | superseded by ]

  • Deciders: [list everyone involved in the decision | Pocket Network Protocol Team | Pocket Network Community | Pocket Network Foundation]

  • Date: [YYYY-MM-DD when the decision was last updated]

Table of Contents

Summary

In the context of [use case | user story u], facing [concern c], we decided for [option o] and neglected [other options], to achieve [system qualities | desired consequences], accepting [downside d | undesired consequences], because [additional rationale].

[ optional additional high-level information ]

Problem Statement

[ description of problem ]

[Background | Origin Document | Technical Story]

[description | ticket/issue URL]

Decision Drivers

  • [driver 1, e.g., a force, …]

  • [driver 2, e.g., a facing concern, …]

  • …

Considered Options

  1. [option 1]

  2. [option 2]

  3. [option 3]

  4. …

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "[option 1]", because [justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver | which resolves force force | … | comes out best (see below)].

Positive Consequences

  • [e.g., improvement of quality attribute satisfaction, follow-up decisions required, …]

  • …

Negative Consequences

  • [e.g., compromising quality attribute, follow-up decisions required, …]

  • …

Pros and Cons of the Options

[option 1]

[example | description | pointer to more information | …]

Pros:

  • [argument a]

  • [argument b]

  • …

Cons:

  • [argument c]

  • …

[option 2]

[example | description | pointer to more information | …]

Pros:

  • [argument a]

  • [argument b]

  • …

Cons:

  • [argument c]

  • …

[option 3]

[example | description | pointer to more information | …]

Pros:

  • [argument a]

  • [argument b]

  • …

Cons:

  • [argument c]

  • …

References

  • …

Link tytle
ADR-XXXX
Problem Statement
[Background | Origin Document | Technical Story]
Decision Drivers
Considered Options
Decision Outcome
Positive Consequences
Negative Consequences
Pros and Cons of the Options
[option 1]
[option 2]
[option 3]
References