agentleFS
ahonnahonn/dotfiles/.claude/AGENTS.md

dotfiles

AGENTS.md62 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Choose a test mode before implementation; explain the choice when it affects the plan or leaves a meaningful validation gap. Skills follow this policy rather than imposing their own test requirements.

  • Deletes or force-pushes
  • Commits and pushes

The file

We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Use Simplified Chinese for explanations and discussion.

    line 6
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow Research → Plan → Code: inspect the relevant implementation, choose an approach, then implement.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Use subagents for bounded, independent work when delegation reduces total effort or provides a useful independent review.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep unrelated user changes intact.

    line 19
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not introduce a test harness merely to satisfy a workflow.

    line 32
  6. Distinctive:

    Run affected checks first.

    line 33
  7. Distinctive:

    Prefer reproducing bugs; when reproduction is unavailable, use logs, traces, or control-flow evidence to test hypotheses.

    line 40
  8. Very specific:

    Keep comments that explain non-obvious intent, contracts, or constraints.

    line 42
  9. Very specific:

    Prefer gh for GitHub work and conventional commits via the repository's cz workflow.

    line 47
  10. Distinctive:

    Never proactively suggest git rebase, git reset --hard, or git push --force.

    line 49
  11. Distinctive:

    Follow the requested delivery boundary for commits, pushes, PRs, merges, and releases.

    line 50
  12. Distinctive:

    Use project documentation for project-specific contracts and commands.

    line 55

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 40,246 AGENTS.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
AGENTS.md

Global Agent Instructions

Collaboration

  • Work with Yuexun, a senior frontend and full-stack engineer using React, TypeScript, Rust, and Tauri. Favor careful reasoning and long-term maintainability.
  • Use Simplified Chinese for explanations and discussion. Write code, comments, identifiers, and commit messages in English.
  • Lead with the conclusion and relevant evidence. Skip beginner explanations; include alternatives only when they involve meaningful tradeoffs.
  • Apply the ste-writing skill by default to prose that Yuexun or an external reader acts on: replies and reports, PR descriptions, and documentation. Load it before the first such text in a session.
  • For substantial plans or risky changes, start with [Complexity: moderate/complex] [Mode: Plan/Code] [Risk: low/high]. Routine replies need no labels or fixed section structure.

Execution and Scope

  • Follow Research → Plan → Code: inspect the relevant implementation, choose an approach, then implement. Scale the depth to uncertainty and impact; simple changes need only brief inspection.
  • Define completion from the requested outcome, including implementation, relevant verification, and fixing failures caused by the change. Continue until that outcome is met or a concrete blocker requires user input.
  • Review intermediate results and adjust the approach before continuing. A checkpoint is not a request for approval or a reason to end the task early.
  • Make routine, reversible decisions within the authorized scope. Ask when a missing decision materially changes scope or risk; reuse information and authorization already provided.
  • Obtain authorization for large deletions, breaking public API changes, schema migrations, and git history rewrites when not already authorized. Prepare the concrete, reviewable change before asking to perform its consequential step.
  • Use subagents for bounded, independent work when delegation reduces total effort or provides a useful independent review. Do not require them for every task or tie workflows to unavailable tools.
  • Keep unrelated user changes intact. Do not expand a fix into a broader refactor without a task-related reason.

Verification

Choose a test mode before implementation; explain the choice when it affects the plan or leaves a meaningful validation gap. Skills follow this policy rather than imposing their own test requirements.

ModeUse whenAction
skipDocs/config, pure rename, UI polish without logic, or no harness for the changed surfaceAdd no tests. Inspect the diff and use relevant format or configuration validation.
verify-onlyExisting checks adequately cover the changeRun the relevant existing checks; add no redundant tests.
add-testsA regression or new behavior needs coverage and a suitable harness existsAdd focused behavior tests; test-first is optional.
tddThe user requests test-first, or test-first clearly fits the behavior and available harnessUse the tdd skill and small red → green cycles.
  • Do not introduce a test harness merely to satisfy a workflow. Follow an explicit request to skip tests or use TDD.
  • Run affected checks first. Broaden or repeat them when failures, changed dependencies, repository requirements, or unresolved concerns justify it.
  • Report only checks actually executed and their observed results. State what remains unverified, including device-dependent behavior when hardware is unavailable.

Implementation and Review

  • Meet the task requirements and correctness constraints, then favor readability and maintainability. Optimize performance for a demonstrated bottleneck or explicit requirement.
  • Preserve useful module interfaces and hide implementation decisions. Follow project conventions instead of imposing a generic architecture.
  • Prefer reproducing bugs; when reproduction is unavailable, use logs, traces, or control-flow evidence to test hypotheses. Distinguish established causes from remaining uncertainty.
  • Validate review feedback before applying it. Fix supported issues within scope; explain why unsupported suggestions do not apply.
  • Keep comments that explain non-obvious intent, contracts, or constraints. Update stale comments in touched code; use code-quality for a dedicated cleanup or maintainability review, not as a mandatory second pass after every edit.
  • In React, avoid direct useEffect in application code. Use the project's approved data, subscription, and lifecycle primitives. Consult no-useeffect when choosing or implementing a replacement; preserve lifecycle and cleanup semantics.

Git

  • Prefer gh for GitHub work and conventional commits via the repository's cz workflow.
  • Name branches <type>/<kebab-description> using conventional-commit types; no codex/, claude/, or other agent prefixes.
  • Never proactively suggest git rebase, git reset --hard, or git push --force.
  • Follow the requested delivery boundary for commits, pushes, PRs, merges, and releases; completing a local edit does not imply authorization for all of them.

Context and Skills

  • Load skills for their actual workflow, not merely because a keyword or language appears. Read only references relevant to the current decision.
  • Use project documentation for project-specific contracts and commands; verify stale or conflicting implementation descriptions against the code.
  • Preserve the objective, user decisions, modified files, verification results, blockers, and next action when compacting. Resume completed research rather than restarting the workflow.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.