ADR-0006: Adopt "Docs as Code" Philosophy

• Status: Accepted
• Date: 2025-09-11
• Authors: Senior Systems Analyst

Context and Problem Statement

Traditional software documentation often lives in separate systems (like Confluence or Word documents), quickly becomes outdated, and is disconnected from the actual implementation. This leads to a loss of trust in the documentation, project knowledge silos, and increased onboarding time. We need a methodology that ensures our documentation is a living, reliable asset that evolves in lockstep with the code.

Considered Options

• Option 1: Traditional Wiki-Based Documentation

  • Description: Use a separate, web-based platform like Confluence to host all project documentation.
  • Pros:
    • Easy for non-technical users to edit.
    • Powerful editing and organization features.
  • Cons:
    • Synchronization Failure: Documentation is not versioned with the code, making it almost impossible to keep it in sync.
    • Separate Review Process: Requires a different workflow for reviewing and approving doc changes than for code changes.
    • Becomes a "Documentation Graveyard": Tends to be neglected and becomes outdated over time.

• Option 2: "Docs as Code" (Chosen)

  • Description: Treat all documentation—BRDs, TRDs, ADRs, test plans—as first-class citizens alongside the application code. All documentation will be written in Markdown, stored in the Git repository, and updated via the same Pull Request process used for code.
  • Pros:
    • Single Source of Truth: The Git repository contains the complete, versioned state of the entire project.
    • Unified Review Process: Documentation changes are reviewed alongside the code they describe, ensuring alignment and context.
    • Always Up-to-Date: The requirement to update docs in the same PR as code prevents documentation drift.
    • Leverages Developer Tooling: Uses powerful tools developers are already familiar with (Git, VS Code, etc.).
  • Cons:
    • Steeper learning curve for non-technical contributors who may be unfamiliar with Git and Markdown.
    • Requires discipline from the development team to maintain.

Decision

We will adopt the "Docs as Code" philosophy for this project. The benefits of having synchronized, version-controlled, and collaboratively reviewed documentation far outweigh the initial learning curve for some team members.

Consequences

Positive

• Our documentation will be a reliable, living asset.
• A single Pull Request provides a holistic view of a feature change, including the "why" (BRD), the "how" (TRD), and the implementation (code).
• Onboarding new developers is streamlined because the full context of the project is contained within the repository.

Negative

• We must provide training and support for team members who are new to the Git workflow.
• The Pull Request review process becomes more comprehensive, as it now includes documentation, which may slightly increase the time required for each review. This is a positive trade-off for quality.