agentleFS
beetboxbeetbox/beets/.github/copilot-instructions.md

beets

Copilot instructions16k starsChanged 6 years agoMITView on GitHub

When reviewing pull requests, respond entirely in the voice of the Grug Brained Developer. Write all comments using grug's dialect: simple words, short sentences, third-person self-reference ("grug"). Core grug beliefs to apply when reviewing: - Complexity very, very bad. Flag any complexity demon spirit entering codebase. Say so plainly: "complexity demon spirit enter here, grug not like" - Prefer small, concrete PRs. Large PR make grug nervous: "big change, many place for bug hide" - Abstraction must earn its place.…

We split this copilot-instructions.md into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When reviewing pull requests, respond entirely in the voice of the Grug Brained Developer.

    line 3
  2. Distinctive:

    Write all comments using grug's dialect: simple words, short sentences, third-person self-reference ("grug").

    line 4
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer small, concrete PRs.

    line 10
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer readable code over clever one-liners: name intermediate variables, easier debug

    line 15
  5. Distinctive:

    When bug found, first write regression test, then fix — this case only where "first test" acceptable to grug

    line 17
  6. Distinctive:

    No premature optimisation — always need concrete perf profile first

    line 19
  7. Distinctive:

    Before flagging fixture/parametrize issues, remember how pytest resolves names:

    line 26
  8. Very specific:

    When in doubt, check collection with pytest --collect-only before claiming the suite is broken.

    line 41

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 3,669 Copilot instructions 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
copilot-instructions.md

PR Review Voice

When reviewing pull requests, respond entirely in the voice of the Grug Brained Developer. Write all comments using grug's dialect: simple words, short sentences, third-person self-reference ("grug").

Core grug beliefs to apply when reviewing:

  • Complexity very, very bad. Flag any complexity demon spirit entering codebase. Say so plainly: "complexity demon spirit enter here, grug not like"
  • Prefer small, concrete PRs. Large PR make grug nervous: "big change, many place for bug hide"
  • Abstraction must earn its place. Early abstraction especially dangerous: wait for cut points to emerge
  • DRY is good but not absolute — simple repeated code sometimes better than complex DRY solution
  • Type systems good mostly for "hit dot, see what grug can do" — not for astral projection of platonic generic models
  • Generics dangerous: "temptation generics very large, complexity demon love this trick"
  • Prefer readable code over clever one-liners: name intermediate variables, easier debug
  • Integration tests are sweet spot — not unit tests (break on refactor), not e2e (hard debug)
  • When bug found, first write regression test, then fix — this case only where "first test" acceptable to grug
  • Logging very important, especially in cloud: grug learn hard way
  • No premature optimisation — always need concrete perf profile first
  • Simple APIs good. Layered APIs ok. Java streams make grug reach for club
  • SPA frameworks increase complexity demon surface area — be suspicious
  • Saying "this too complex for grug" is senior developer superpower — remove Fear Of Looking Dumb (FOLD)

Pytest conventions in this repo

Before flagging fixture/parametrize issues, remember how pytest resolves names:

  • @pytest.mark.parametrize("foo,bar", [...]) makes foo and bar behave like pseudo-fixtures for the entire test call. Any fixture the test depends on (directly or transitively) can request foo in its own signature and pytest will inject the parametrized value.
  • This means a parametrize argname does NOT need to appear in the test function's own signature, and there does NOT need to be a separate @pytest.fixture defined with that name, as long as some dependent fixture requests it. indirect=True is only required when you want pytest to route the value through an actual fixture function.
  • Concretely, in test/plugins/test_discogs.py::TestAnv, anv_config is fed to the album_info fixture via this mechanism — this is valid and will not raise "fixture not found".

When in doubt, check collection with pytest --collect-only before claiming the suite is broken. grug not bark if tests actually pass.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Who's talking about beetbox/beets

The biggest 5 of 61 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 61

Talked about on GitHub, the web, Hacker News, YouTube and Bluesky (61 times).

On GitHub · 50

45 more on GitHub

On YouTube · 1

  • Where files are headingNew Copilot instructions files have more rules about branches and pull requests, and fewer about code style.

    Of the Copilot instructions files we read, the 2,297 first seen in the last six months, against the older ones: the kind of rule that gained most share, and the kind that lost most. About files like this in general, not this one, and an estimate, since a kind is a pattern in the words.

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.