After a few years of building real systems, I noticed a pattern:
Most architecture content explains what to do, but very little explains why a decision was made — and what it cost.
In practice, architecture is mostly about constraints, compromises, and learning what breaks over time.
I recently started keeping a public architecture notebook where I document:
architectural decisions (with alternatives)
trade-offs I’ve encountered in .NET systems
small runnable proofs instead of big demo apps
ideas that may change as reality pushes back
It’s opinionated, pragmatic, and intentionally revisable.
Repo: <a href="https://github.com/musmanrafiq/Usman.Architecture" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://github.com/musmanrafiq/Usman.Architecture</a>
I’m curious — how do you document architectural decisions on your team (if at all)?

Anything I have learned related to programming and software development.

UsmanCode

A developer shares their frustration with architecture content that presents solutions without explaining trade-offs or constraints. They've created a public architecture notebook documenting architectural decisions, alternatives, trade-offs in .NET systems, and small runnable proofs. The repository emphasizes pragmatic, opinionated guidance that acknowledges real-world compromises and is open to revision based on experience.

I got tired of architectural advice that ignores trade-offs

<a href="https://app.daily.dev/usmancode" data-mention-id="eO9M7ectqWnQO4lvbR9Sy" data-mention-username="usmancode" translate="no">@usmancode</a> I can’t find in your repository the <code>docs</code> folder:
<img src="https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--82IdZcmx--/f_auto/v1769504631/ugc/content_20f1fe06-0ef6-4a2f-8fb2-95ed5e31cf18?_a=BAMAMiiu0" alt="image">

Your idea is probably under appreciated in the design community. Some system design teams do a good job documenting their design but the practice is not followed or appreciated to the degree I believe it should be. One idea that I have never seen practiced and something I found useful is that you document alternatives. I put this a bit differently by telling people they have to document their rationale and alternatives that were considered but not chosen. This keeps design teams from revisiting in depth poor choices. Documenting why something is not feasible is also important because as you say reality may push back or actually change with time. Over time there may be a good reason to adopt a design that was previously rejected but because of changing technology or requirements has become a good idea.

We are following AWS’s ADRs guidelines with some minor changes. Sufficient for our needs. Documents are in dedicated repo for historical track.
<a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/architectural-decision-records/adr-process.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/architectural-decision-records/adr-process.html</a>

yo this hits hard. love that you’re flipping the script from “do this” to “why this, and what it costs.” the notebook vibe + small runnable proofs &gt; giant demos any day. the repo name is clean too , keeping it real and revisable is exactly what we need in these rails-to-real systems moments liked this one!

That’s a very good initiative. Looking forward to learn more from it.