Architecture Decisions › 📁 General › ADR-0002: Establish Architecture Review Board
ADR-0002
✓ Accepted Flowchart Diagram

Establish Architecture Review Board

Status

Accepted

Context

As our ShopFlow platform grows in complexity, we need a structured approach to review and approve architectural decisions. Currently, architectural decisions are made ad-hoc by individual teams or developers, leading to:

  • Inconsistent architectural patterns across the platform
  • Lack of visibility into system-wide architectural changes
  • Risk of conflicting design decisions between teams
  • Difficulty maintaining architectural coherence as we scale
  • Limited knowledge sharing about architectural trade-offs

We considered several approaches for architectural governance:

  1. Heavyweight Architecture Review Board: Traditional committee with regular meetings for all decisions
  2. Informal Peer Review: Continue current ad-hoc review process
  3. GitHub PR-based Review Process: Structured but asynchronous review using pull requests
  4. External Architecture Consultancy: Outsource architectural review to third parties

The team values efficiency and our existing GitHub-based workflow, while recognizing the need for more structure in architectural decision-making.

Decision

We will establish an Architecture Review Board (ARB) that operates primarily through GitHub Pull Requests, with meetings only when asynchronous discussion is insufficient.

Review Process

flowchart TD A[Architectural Decision Needed] --> B[Create ADR Draft] B --> C[Open GitHub PR with ADR] C --> D[ARB Members Review PR] D --> E{Consensus Reached?} E -->|Yes| F[Approve & Merge PR] E -->|No| G{Complex Discussion Needed?} G -->|Yes| H[Schedule ARB Meeting] G -->|No| I[Continue Async Discussion] H --> J[Meeting Decision] J --> K[Update ADR based on Meeting] K --> F I --> E F --> L[ADR Accepted & Documented]

ARB Composition

  • Technical Leads: One from each major domain (Frontend, Backend, Data, Infrastructure)
  • Principal Engineer: Overall architectural oversight
  • Product Architecture Representative: Business alignment

Review Criteria

Pull requests trigger ARB review when they:

  • Introduce new ADRs
  • Modify existing ADRs
  • Include architectural changes affecting multiple services
  • Propose new technology adoption
  • Change data models or API contracts

Meeting Escalation

Schedule synchronous meetings only when:

  • PR discussion exceeds 5 business days without resolution
  • Complex trade-offs require real-time discussion
  • Cross-team coordination needed for implementation
  • Disagreement between ARB members requires mediation

Consequences

Positive:

  • Structured yet lightweight architectural review process
  • Leverages existing GitHub workflow and tooling
  • Asynchronous by default, respecting distributed team schedules
  • All architectural decisions documented and searchable
  • Clear escalation path for complex decisions
  • Maintains development velocity while improving architecture quality

Negative:

  • Additional process overhead for architectural changes
  • Potential bottleneck if ARB members are unavailable for review
  • Risk of extended discussion delays in PRs
  • Requires discipline to follow the process consistently

Neutral:

  • ARB members need to allocate time for regular PR reviews
  • Meeting scheduling still required for escalated discussions
  • Process will need refinement based on usage patterns
  • Success depends on active participation from ARB members

Implementation Notes

  • ARB reviews use GitHub's draft PR and review features
  • ADR template includes reviewer checklist
  • ARB member rotation every 6 months to prevent burnout
  • Quarterly retrospectives to improve the process

This ADR establishes our architectural governance process using GitHub-based collaboration.