Most software projects don't fail because developers can't write code. They fail because decisions get lost.
Months or years later, the code still runs, tests pass, and systems appear healthy—but the reasoning behind key choices has vanished. Why was this library chosen? Why does this service behave this way? Was it a performance optimization, a business constraint, or just a temporary workaround that became permanent?
What survives isn’t code clarity — it’s a set of unwritten rules, remembered only by the people who were there at the beginning. This isn’t just a tooling problem—it’s an institutional memory problem. And when intent disappears, every change becomes riskier, slower, and more expensive.
Teams don't usually break architecture they're careless. They break it because the people who undertsood the original decisions leave, deadlines create constant pressure, documentation becomes outdated, and crucial decisions are buried in chat threads and pull requests rather than recorded formally.
Knowing why something was built is just as important as knowing how it works. Without that knowledge, teams guess—and systems slowly become harder and riskier to maintain.
If decisions are allowed to drift away from the code, they will eventually be forgotten. Architecture Decision Records only work when they are part of the developer's daily workflow, close to the code, visible during reviews, and capable of surfacing when a rule is about to be broken. Otherwise, they become historical documents rather than living constraints. The real challenge then isn't deciding what to document. It's ensuring that architectural decisions are discoverable, reviewable, and enforceable at the moment they matter most when code is being written and changed.
What if architecture could answer questions?
Imagine being able to ask your project: Why is using an ORM forbidden here?
And getting a clear, consistent answer - not from a person who might be on vacation, but from the system itself. That means fewer repeated explanations, smoother onboarding, and less "architectural folklore".
Architecture as executable knowledge
PHPDecide is a CLI tool that treats architectural decisions as:
- versioned artifacts in your repository
- structured, machine-readable knowledge
- explainable constraints
- optionally enforceable rules
Each decision captures:
- what was decided
- why it was decided
- where it applies
- optionally, how it can be enforced
Who writes decision files (and why some teams resist)
You might wonder: If we can just talk in meetings, why bother writing decision files at all?
In some teams, leaders or senior developers resist because it feels like a loss of control. When knowledge lives only in their heads, they are the gatekeepers.
But relying on meetings and memory creates hidden risks:
- knowledge silos and single points of failure
- junior developers hesitate to ask
- decisions get forgotten or unintentionally violated
- reviews become debates about intent instead of implementation
Decision files shift authority from individuals to the team and the repository: transparent, explainable, and shareable.
Your turn
Have you ever seen architecture slowly erode because nobody documented the "Why"?
If you are curious, try the idea in a small, safe way:
- Record 3-5 high-signal decisions
- Run the lint step in CI
- Use explain in reviews for a month
Then measure what changed: fewer repeated questions, faster onboarding, and more consistent reviews.
Top comments (0)