ADR-024: Automated Documentation Generation (ADG) Framework

Status: Accepted Version: 1.0 Date: 2025-10-01 Supersedes: N/A Related ADRs: N/A Related PRDs: PRD-016, PRD-017


Context

Documentation in fast-paced development environments often becomes stale, incomplete, or inconsistent with the actual codebase. Manual documentation efforts are time-consuming and error-prone, leading to developer frustration and reduced team productivity. There is a critical need for a system that can automatically generate and maintain comprehensive, accurate, and production-ready documentation.

Decision

Implement an Automated Documentation Generation (ADG) Framework comprising a Documentation Orchestrator Service and a Project Context Analyzer Service, both deeply integrated with the Semantic Core, Knowledge Graph, CALM architectural definitions, and the Cognitive Artifact Engine.

Rationale

By leveraging the SEA™’s existing semantic infrastructure, architectural governance layer, and AI-driven artifact generation capabilities, the ADG Framework can produce documentation that is:

The Documentation Orchestrator coordinates the generation process, while the Project Context Analyzer extracts rich contextual information from multiple sources (code, DSL definitions, SBVR rules, CALM models, Knowledge Graph).

This ensures that generated documentation reflects the true state of the system, adheres to organizational standards, and provides value to developers, architects, and other stakeholders. The framework treats documentation as a first-class cognitive artifact, generated using CADSL and rendered through the existing artifact rendering infrastructure.

Alternatives Considered

Static Documentation Generators (e.g., Sphinx, JSDoc)

Rejected - Limited semantic awareness, lack of integration with architectural governance, and inability to generate context-aware cognitive artifacts.

Manual Documentation Processes

Rejected - High maintenance burden, inconsistency risk, and poor scalability.

General-Purpose AI Documentation Tools

Rejected - Lack the semantic grounding, architectural validation, and enterprise-specific context that SEA™ provides.

Constraints

Quality Attributes

Bounded Contexts Impacted

Consequences

Positive

Negative

Additional Notes

MVP