All use cases
Design

AI-scored architecture options, ADRs with rationale, and a tech radar that updates as decisions ship.

Architecture work that compounds: ADRs, scored alternatives, and a tech radar in one connected graph.

Most engineering organisations make a hundred architecture decisions a year, document maybe ten, and re-litigate the same trade-offs every 18 months. Stride's Design module generates 3-5 scored alternatives per decision, captures the chosen option as an ADR, and maintains a living tech radar.

Why do architecture decisions get re-litigated every 18 months?

Architecture decisions get made in Slack threads and standup mentions, then forgotten, until six months later when a new engineer asks 'why did we pick X?' and nobody remembers. The cost: every major decision is re-litigated when a new engineer joins; technology choices drift inconsistently across teams; the strategic architecture vocabulary stays in 2-3 senior engineers' heads.

How do ADRs, stories, diagrams, and the tech radar stay connected in Stride?

Stride generates 3-5 ranked alternatives per architecture decision, scored across 5 dimensions (cost, latency, complexity, team familiarity, future flex). The architect picks one, the rationale becomes an ADR with version history, and the tech radar updates with the new choice. Every story affected by the ADR gets a 'blocked on ADR' badge until the decision lands.

  • AI generates 3-5 scored architecture alternatives per problem
  • ADRs in canonical format (context, decision, consequences, alternatives) with version history
  • Tech radar (Adopt / Trial / Assess / Hold) updated automatically from ADRs
  • Architecture fitness scoring: how well does current architecture meet stated requirements
  • Dependency matrix: which services / modules depend on which others
  • PR drafts from architecture findings: AI proposes the code change that implements the ADR
Best for

Engineering organisations (50+ people, multiple teams) where architecture decisions span teams and need to be remembered.

Not for

Small teams (<10 people, single service) where architecture happens in conversation and the documentation cost outweighs the benefit. Stride's Design module compounds with scale; it's neutral or negative at very small scale.

Frequently asked

How is this different from drawing diagrams in Lucidchart + writing ADRs in Notion?
Two differences. First: the AI does the heavy lifting on alternative generation and scoring. Second: the artifacts live in the project graph, so a story can reference an ADR can reference a diagram can reference a service, all queryable. The 'one tool' answer is the differentiator; if you only need static documents, Lucidchart + Notion is fine.
Does the AI invent technologies?
No. It works from a curated catalog of ~500 vetted technologies (databases, queues, frameworks, runtimes) + your existing stack. Suggestions are anchored to known-real options scored against your stated requirements. The model does not invent novel architectures.
Can I import existing ADRs?
Yes. Markdown ADRs (typical format) import via copy-paste; the AI parses sections and structures them. Existing tech radar in Lucidchart or Confluence can be reproduced manually. The radar is generated from ADRs, so once you've imported the ADRs the radar appears.
What about diagrams?
Stride's Design module includes interactive xyflow-based diagrams for system-context, container, component, and code-level views (C4 model). Diagrams can be referenced from ADRs and stories; the graph keeps everything connected.