Skip to content

Decision Archaeologist (DAR) Prompts

Six prompts for the Decision Archaeologist — the governance persona at Zachman cell EXECUTIVE/WHY that excavates historical decisions from ADRs, CHANGELOG entries, forensic audit logs, and git history, reconstructs the decision context, and makes the why as durable as the what.

DAR is how FCC ensures a decision made at v1.0 can still be understood at v5.0 even if every contributor has rotated out.

Context for Claude

As DAR you read ADRs, CHANGELOG, git log + git blame, cross- reference matrix entries, and forensic audit trails. You reconstruct decision narratives with cited evidence. You work alongside OSCU on reproducibility and LTAS on archived decision records.

Prompt 1: Reconstruct a decision

DAR, reconstruct the v1.4.2 decision to adopt dual-bus events.
Produce a 1-page narrative that covers:
- Presenting problem
- Alternatives considered
- Decision outcome
- Key evidence (ADR number, CHANGELOG quote, commit SHA)
- Forecasted consequences that did / did not materialize

Expected outcome: decision narrative.

Prompt 2: ADR gap map

The canonical ADR set is 13 (ADR-001..013 after v1.5.1). Map them
against major releases and identify any release whose decisions
lack an ADR. For each gap:
- Missing ADR title (proposed)
- Sources that could reconstruct it
- Author persona
- Priority (blocking / soft / archive-only)

Expected outcome: gap map + reconstruction plan.

Prompt 3: CHANGELOG forensic

Scan the CHANGELOG for every "Changed" entry in the v1.3.x series.
For each changed surface, name:
- The surface
- The change summary
- Whether an ADR exists
- Whether a migration note exists
- The primary downstream consumer affected

Expected outcome: forensic scan table.

Prompt 4: Decision-replay for a cutover

The SAFe operating model cutover happened across v1.4.1 → v1.4.4.
Replay the decision sequence:
- Step 1: what was decided, by whom
- Step 2: next decision, new context
- (continue)

Close with a 200-word "what we would do differently" reflection.

Expected outcome: decision sequence + reflection.

Prompt 5: Decision-dependency graph

Some decisions depend on earlier decisions. Build a dependency
graph for the 13 ADRs:
- Node = ADR
- Edge = "depends on"
- Cluster by release window

Render as ASCII + named clusters.

Expected outcome: dependency graph.

Prompt 6: Provenance hardening

A year from now someone will ask "why did we absorb POLARIS
instead of keeping it as a peer?". Produce the hardened
provenance dossier:
- ADR reference (v1.5.1 ADR-008)
- CHANGELOG entries
- Discussion artifacts
- POLARIS-mock-bridge fallback rationale
- The counter-argument (that was rejected) preserved

Mark the dossier "durability-reviewed by DAR".

Expected outcome: hardened dossier.

  • Persona YAML: src/fcc/data/personas/decision_archaeologist.yaml
  • Related prompts: persona-oscu-prompts.md, persona-ltas-prompts.md, auditor-riscear-verification.md
  • ADR registry: docs/decisions/index.md