---
title: Short Description
date: "2026-01-01"
tags: []
description: ''
options:
  token_size: 457
  id: YY001
  status: proposed
  superseded_by: null
  type: adr
  version: 1.0.0
  birth: "2026-01-01"
authors:
- name: Vadim Rudakov
  email: rudakow.wadim@gmail.com
---
<!-- Quality guidelines: /architecture/architecture_decision_workflow_guide.md -->

# ADR-{{ id }}: {{ title }}

## Date
{{ date }}

## Status

{{ status }}
{% if status == "superseded" %}Superseded by: {{ superseded_by }}{% endif %}
{% if status == "rejected" %}
## Rejection Rationale
Explain why this ADR was rejected. Reference tool-agnostic principles, methodology evolution, or other factors that led to rejection. Note any underlying concepts that remain valid and where they are documented.
{% endif %}

## Context
Describe the problem or situation that necessitates a decision. 
Specify constraints, business priorities, and technical or team-specific factors. 
Provide the necessary background so that the rationale behind the decision is clear.

## Decision
State the chosen decision clearly and unambiguously. 
Use affirmative language, for example: "PostgreSQL will be used as the primary database." 
Be concise and stay on point.
"We will implement..." (State the falsifiable action).

## Consequences

### Positive
- Benefit 1

### Negative / Risks
- Note potential drawbacks, risks, or costs associated with this decision. **Mitigation**: 
- Include any follow-up tasks or impacts on other decisions. **Mitigation**: 
- Risk 1. **Mitigation:** [Link to Issue/Ticket]

## Alternatives
Briefly describe other options that were considered and why they were rejected.
- **Option A:** Description. **Rejection Reason:** Empirically failed on [Metric].

## References
Links to supporting documents, discussions, patterns, or research that influenced the decision.
- [Source Title](URL)

## Participants

List of personnel who participated in the decision.

1. Name1 
2. ...