Context and Problem Statement
The kit is meant to be copied into many agent and product repos. A restrictive license would slow adoption and create friction for teams that vendor skills/SOPs. We needed a clear dedication of rights.
Decision Drivers
- Maximum reuse and forkability
- Minimal legal ceremony for agents copying templates
- Honesty that this is tooling/process, not a proprietary product surface
Considered Options
- **Option A:** MIT / Apache-2.0
- **Option B:** Unlicense (public domain dedication)
- **Option C:** Proprietary / source-available
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "**Option B**", because the kit's value is process and prompts that teams must freely adapt; see LICENSE.
Consequences
- Good, because consumers can copy skills and SOPs without license anxiety
- Bad, because some organizations prefer an explicit copyright grant (MIT) over public-domain language
- Follow-up: if a future npm-published package needs a different posture, record a superseding ADR
Architecture sketch
flowchart LR
Kit[agent-lifecycle-kit] -->|copy / fork / adapt| Consumer[App repos and agents]
Kit --> License[Unlicense]
Links
- Related ADRs: none
- License file: LICENSE