---
package: <name>
version: "<semver range>"
tier: app | feature | core
decision: approved | rejected
date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
deciders: [<author>, ...]
adr: adr-NNN | null
filter-results:
  license: <SPDX id>
  types: native | "@types/<x>" | none
  maintenance: active | dormant | abandoned
  boundary-fit: pass | fail
  shadow-check: pass | fail | "shadows <x>"
  eu-residency: ok | n/a | self-hostable | fail
  cve-scan: clean | "<advisory-id>" | fail
  named-consumer: pass | fail
verification-commands:
  - <literal command that produced each filter result>
accepted-cves: []
---

## Filter: license

<!-- Result: <SPDX id> -->

Allowed licences: MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-\*, ISC, MPL-2.0. Record the SPDX
identifier from `package.json` or `npx license-checker`. Anything outside the
allowlist is an automatic reject.

## Filter: types

<!-- Result: native | @types/<x> | none -->

Confirm TypeScript types are available (`native` = ships its own `.d.ts`;
`@types/<x>` = community types package exists; `none` = no types → auto-reject).

## Filter: maintenance

<!-- Result: active | dormant | abandoned -->

Check last release date and recent PR/issue activity. `active` = last release
< 18 months AND activity < 12 months. `dormant` = stable but not actively
developed (acceptable for finished libraries). `abandoned` = auto-reject.

## Filter: boundary-fit

<!-- Result: pass | fail -->

Confirm the dependency does not violate ESLint boundary-tag rules for the
target tier (ADR-006, ADR-010, ADR-017). E.g., a Sentry SDK added to a feature
package is an auto-reject because ADR-017 §4 reserves vendor SDKs for core.

## Filter: shadow-check

<!-- Result: pass | fail | "shadows <x>" -->

Check whether this library duplicates a must-have already locked in the
workspace (e.g., proposing `valibot` when `zod` is locked, `tsyringe` when
Inversify is locked by ADR-002). A parallel adoption is `shadows <x>` and an
auto-reject; a replacement requires a dedicated ADR.

## Filter: eu-residency

<!-- Result: ok | n/a | self-hostable | fail -->

If the library transmits user data, telemetry, or business state to a
vendor-controlled endpoint by default, the vendor must offer an EU data region.
Self-hostable packages and build-time-only tools are `n/a`.

## Filter: cve-scan

<!-- Result: clean | "<advisory-id>" | fail -->

Run `pnpm audit --audit-level=moderate`. `clean` = no advisories at adoption
time. Record any accepted advisory IDs in the `accepted-cves` frontmatter field
and explain the risk acceptance here.

## Filter: named-consumer

<!-- Result: pass | fail -->

Answer: "Who calls this code path today, or who is blocked waiting for it?"
Hypothetical future callers are not consumers. This filter is the direct
response to the 2026-05-14 OpenAPI near-miss (ADR-022 §Context).

## Prompt: replaces

<!-- Required: answer in either direction with justification -->

What existing library or approach does this replace? New-and-old running in
parallel is a smell — name the thing being retired and its retirement plan, or
explain why parallel adoption is intentional and time-bounded.

## Prompt: migration-cost-out

<!-- Required: mechanical | hard | impossible + justification -->

What does ripping this back out look like 18 months from now? Is the removal
mechanical (swap one package, update call sites), hard (scattered integration
points, data format dependencies), or impossible (vendor lock-in, protocol
coupling)? Higher migration cost raises the bar for adoption.

## Prompt: alternatives-considered

<!-- Required: minimum two named alternatives, or "none with explanation" -->

Name at least two alternatives evaluated before choosing this library. For
`core`-tier adoptions, this section is also duplicated into the companion ADR.
If no alternatives exist, explain why (e.g., the library is the de-facto
standard with no viable substitutes).