agent47
CLAUDE.md4 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Before changing any human-facing surface, read DESIGN.md and follow the shared-design instructions in AGENTS.md, including artifact drift checks and separate rendered-surface acceptance. Claude Code already injects broad tool, style, memory, and session guidance. This file is only for AgentGuard-specific repo rules that Claude would not know otherwise. Before touching code or docs, read these files in this order: If memory/ conflicts with older repo docs, memory/ wins. AgentGuard is the public SDK wedge. Non-negotiable: Before coding, explicitly restate: If ops/03-ROADMAP_NOW_NEXT_LATER.md…
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- llms.txtllms.txt
- next-ticketSkill
- agentguardSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 14 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
14
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 5
Before changing any human-facing surface, read DESIGN.md and follow the shared-design instructions in AGENTS.md, including artifact drift …
- Distinctive: line 15
Before touching code or docs, read these files in this order:
- Very specific: line 26
If memory/ conflicts with older repo docs, memory/ wins.
- Distinctive: line 41
do not add paid/dashboard features in this repo
- Distinctive: line 42
do not put business-sensitive plans or outreach data in this repo
- Distinctive: line 46
Before coding, explicitly restate:
- Very specific: line 53
If ops/03-ROADMAP_NOW_NEXT_LATER.md is older than 5 days or ARCHITECTURE.md is older than 14 days, warn before starting work.
- Distinctive: line 59
keep changes minimal and product-facing
- Very specific: line 60
stop if the request conflicts with memory/ or ops/
- Distinctive: line 61
leave proof for every PR
- Distinctive: line 63
do the post-PR review loop: CI, automated review, comment sweep, fixes, rerun
- Distinctive: line 86
Prefer the repo commands:
- Very specific: line 96
If make is unavailable, run the direct equivalents and save the output as proof.
- Distinctive: line 99
Use the repo's existing proof discipline:
- Distinctive: line 102
keep PR summaries in the pull request body
- Very specific: line 103
keep active repo follow-ups in ops/FOLLOWUP.md
- Very specific: line 104
do not add one-off reports, work plans, or handoff notes to the repo root.
- Very specific: line 107
After a merged PR, TLDR the owner (what shipped, what did not, next only if already authorized), then add one short SDK-only entry to …
- Very specific: line 119
Read ARCHITECTURE.md for the current directory map and data flow instead of copying stale module graphs into new docs.
- Distinctive: line 124
Use Claude Code features that already exist instead of re-describing them here:
- Very specific: line 155
Every agent session that changes this repo records falsifiable claims and closes through the showwork exit gate …
- Very specific: line 157
Keep additional test environments under .venv/ and temporary test data under .pytest_cache/.
- Very specific: line 164
Start material work: python -m showwork.cli start --session <task-slug> --agent <claude-code|codex|gemini>
- Very specific: line 165
After each completed change, record a claim with a check that can fail (types: file_exists, file_contains, path_moved, frontmatter, …
- Very specific: line 167
Before reporting success: python -m showwork.cli finish --session <task-slug> --status ok
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.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.
Files
CLAUDE.md
Shared human-facing design
Before changing any human-facing surface, read DESIGN.md and follow the
shared-design instructions in AGENTS.md, including artifact drift checks
and separate rendered-surface acceptance.
Claude Code already injects broad tool, style, memory, and session guidance. This file is only for AgentGuard-specific repo rules that Claude would not know otherwise.
Read First
Before touching code or docs, read these files in this order:
memory/state.mdmemory/blockers.mdmemory/decisions.mdmemory/distribution.mdops/00-NORTHSTAR.mdops/03-ROADMAP_NOW_NEXT_LATER.mdops/04-DEFINITION_OF_DONE.mdARCHITECTURE.md
If memory/ conflicts with older repo docs, memory/ wins.
Repo Boundary
AgentGuard is the public SDK wedge.
sdk/= zero-dependency Python runtime guardrails SDKmcp-server/= narrow read-only MCP surface- hosted dashboard = private repo, out of scope here
Non-negotiable:
- SDK stays free, MIT, and zero-dependency
- distribution beats random feature expansion
- focus stays on runtime enforcement + coding-agent safety
- do not add paid/dashboard features in this repo
- do not put business-sensitive plans or outreach data in this repo
Claude Repo Contract
Before coding, explicitly restate:
- goal
- scope
- non-goals
- done criteria tied to
ops/04-DEFINITION_OF_DONE.md
If ops/03-ROADMAP_NOW_NEXT_LATER.md is older than 5 days or
ARCHITECTURE.md is older than 14 days, warn before starting work.
Always:
- read before editing
- keep changes minimal and product-facing
- stop if the request conflicts with
memory/orops/ - leave proof for every PR
- open every PR ready for review; never create a draft
- do the post-PR review loop: CI, automated review, comment sweep, fixes, rerun
- address and resolve every comment: reply on the thread, fix or cite the SHA, resolve the GitHub conversation, and repeat until none remain
What Claude Should Optimize For Here
- onboarding and activation
- docs, quickstarts, and starter quality
- SDK hardening and tests
- eval/report/incident proof surfaces
- release-readiness and metadata consistency
- distribution-supporting assets tied to the actual SDK and MCP product
Avoid:
- dashboard-only work
- speculative framework sprawl
- broad observability positioning
- novelty features with weak adoption value
- large refactors without user-facing payoff
Repo-Specific Workflow
Prefer the repo commands:
make preflight
make check
make structural
make security
make release-guardIf make is unavailable, run the direct equivalents and save the output as
proof.
Use the repo's existing proof discipline:
- save artifacts under
proof/<task-name>/ - keep PR summaries in the pull request body
- keep active repo follow-ups in
ops/FOLLOWUP.md - do not add one-off reports, work plans, or handoff notes to the repo root;
archive any retained historical notes under
docs/archive/root-reports/
After a merged PR, TLDR the owner (what shipped, what did not, next only if
already authorized), then add one short SDK-only entry to inbox/log.md.
Architecture Notes That Matter For Claude
- Public API stability flows through
sdk/agentguard/__init__.py - core SDK modules stay stdlib-only
- one-way import direction matters; do not create core-module cycles
- guards raise exceptions rather than returning booleans
- local-first proof matters:
doctor,demo,quickstart, starter files, JSONL traces,report,incident,decisions
Read ARCHITECTURE.md for the current directory map and data flow instead of
copying stale module graphs into new docs.
Claude-Specific Opportunities
Use Claude Code features that already exist instead of re-describing them here:
- built-in memory features where available, plus repo
memory/ - surfaced skills and tool guidance from Claude Code itself
- repo-local Claude assets under
.claude/agents/when they help
For this repo, the most relevant Claude-side assets are:
.claude/agents/sdk-dev.md.claude/agents/pm.md.agents/skills/next-ticket/SKILL.mdwhen the owner says to pull or work the next ticketmemory/ARCHITECTURE.md
Current Product Snapshot
- package:
agentguard47 - official MCP Registry listing: live
- dashboard remains private
Current release candidate: v2.0.0.
<!-- release candidate is 2.0.0 -->Core message to preserve:
AgentGuard stops coding agents from looping, retrying forever, and burning budget.
Outcome Verification (showwork)
Every agent session that changes this repo records falsifiable claims and closes through the showwork exit gate (github.com/bmdhodl/showwork). Receipts live in .showwork/ and ship with the PR.
Keep additional test environments under .venv/ and temporary test data under
.pytest_cache/. The installed showwork snapshotter skips those directory
names; it does not read a .showworkignore file or Git ignore rules. Do not
create sibling .extras-venv/ or .audit-tmp/ directories for new runs.
Preserve existing session snapshots unchanged so their recorded hashes remain
verifiable; changing future directory placement must not rewrite old evidence.
- Start material work:
python -m showwork.cli start --session <task-slug> --agent <claude-code|codex|gemini> - After each completed change, record a claim with a check that can fail (types:
file_exists,file_contains,path_moved,frontmatter,glob_count,command):python -m showwork.cli claim --session <task-slug> --claim "<what changed>" --type file_contains --path <file> --pattern "<regex>" - Before reporting success:
python -m showwork.cli finish --session <task-slug> --status ok- REFUSED (exit 2) means a claimed "done" is not backed by reality. Fix the gap or retract the claim truthfully (
retract), then finish again. NEVER pass--no-verifyto manufacture a clean close; if genuinely stuck,finish --status blocked.
- REFUSED (exit 2) means a claimed "done" is not backed by reality. Fix the gap or retract the claim truthfully (
git add .showwork/and commit the ledger with your change - the receipt is part of the PR. Do not gitignore it. The ledger is append-only; never rewrite history in it.- The Stop hook in
.claude/settings.jsonrecords a claims verdict when a session stops. It observes; it never blocks. The explicitfinishis the gate.
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
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.

