2. Commit ADRs to git
3. Mention ADRs in AGENTS.md
A CLAUDE.md (or AGENTS.md, etc) is typically hand-written, untyped, and never checked. Nothing stops it from still telling the agent to do something you reversed six months ago, and nobody validates it in CI.
Lore keeps the actual decisions/requirements/designs as typed Markdown in your repo, and rac export --agent-rules generates those rules files from the decisions that are currently Accepted — superseded ones drop out automatically. So the rules file becomes a build artifact of your knowledge base instead of something you hand-maintain and hope stays current. (Note that in dogfooding Lore that its repo does exactly that: its CLAUDE.md is a ~20-line router into the validated corpus)
The part that makes it more than markdown-with-a-schema is write-time enforcement. rac validate / rac gate run in CI and fail the merge if an artifact is malformed, a link is broken or ambiguous, or anything points at a superseded decision. At serve time it's a read-only MCP server doing deterministic retrieval — the exact current decision by ID, not similarity-ranked guesses. No RAG, no embeddings, no model call to decide what's relevant.
On spec-driven dev (Spec Kit, OpenSpec, Kiro): those drive a change — proposal → design → tasks → implementation, usually archived when the feature ships. Lore holds the durable why that outlives any single change and gets served to the agent on every session. It's the layer above SDD, not a replacement — you'd point a spec tool at the decisions Lore is enforcing.
think of it as a layer above SDD and not a competitor, so basically you point your spec tool at the constraints Lore enforces.
While working on this I figured what if I build a proxy for coding agents - Claude Code, opencode, Codex, etc. support a proxy. This proxy would edit prompts and tool_calls and feed context from an internal index it will maintain. That index will contain git logs, GitHub/JIRA/etc tickets/epics, PRD or other documents, tech stack setup.
It is just an idea and may not work but working at the proxy layer means this can be deployed at a team level, needs no MCP install and can re-shape prompts for everyone depending on the project. Wild idea perhaps.
Two things drove it:
One, a proxy that silently rewrites what the agent sees is hard to audit so you can't review an injection that never lands anywhere, and when it misfires you're debugging an invisible middle layer. We wanted the injected context to be a file in the PR diff (a generated CLAUDE.md/rules file) and the rest to be explicit read tools the agent chooses to call.
Two, and this is the part I'd flag for your index, the hard problem isn't delivery, it's knowing which decision is still current. An index built from git logs + tickets + PRDs is mostly stale or contradictory text; if a call got reversed six months ago, a fuzzy index will happily re-inject the old one. So that's where we spend the complexity budget: typed, human-reviewed decisions where "superseded" is enforced in CI, so the agent never gets handed a ruling you already overturned.
Which is why I think these compose rather than compete. Your proxy is a delivery mechanism; it still needs a trustworthy source for "the decisions this team made." That's what Lore is, and it exports for exactly this — rac export --documents (JSONL) or --graph to feed an index, --agent-rules for the injection layer. Stay fuzzy and convenient at recall, point back at a deterministic source for the part that has to be exactly right. Keen to see where praxis_agent_runtime goes — provenance-first is the right instinct.
Lore serves your team's durable knowledge - requirements, decisions, designs, roadmaps, prompts - all as typed Markdown, read-only to Claude Code / Cursor over MCP, so the agent cites your decisions instead of contradicting them.
The bet: retrieval is deterministic. No embeddings, no vector store, no model call to pick what's relevant — same query, same bytes, same result, offline. It's not a RAG competitor; it composes — recall fuzzily, then verify the EXACT, CURRENT decision in Lore (it declines the ones you've superseded). Runs in CI (rac validate / rac gate) too.
pipx install rac-core
rac quickstart
claude mcp add lore -- rac mcp
(Lore is the product; the engine under it is RAC — Requirements as Code, the `rac` package.) Apache-2.0, typed.
Let's say ADR 1 specifies users are unique by e-mail and should be soft-deleted, and ADR 2 says users are unique by username. Will RAC pick up on the fact that users still need to be soft-deleted? Is there a lot of manual "reference ADR 1 from ADR 2" to help with determinism?
I think your example is a bit more of a modelling question, and if soft-delete must outlive the uniqueness decision it should be its own requirement that’s persisted as RAC guarantees the graph stays consistent and current; it doesn’t guess which clause survives — that’s the users call.
You're either a bot, in which case piss off, or a bot-augmented human, in which case please tone down the bot augmentation and take the time to write less sloppy, more concise remarks
or am i the naive one, replying to a claudebot instance like its a human with thoughts and feelings that might care
Also this user created an even newer account at the same time as posting this to drive engagement. /tinfoil-hat off