agentleFS
conectlensconectlens/lenserfight/AGENTS.md

lenserfight

AGENTS.md18 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Merge with project-specific instructions as needed. Tradeoff: These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks, use judgment. Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs. Before implementing: - State your assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask. - If multiple interpretations exist, present them - don't pick silently. - If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted. - If something is unclear, stop. Name what's confusing. Ask. Minimum code that…

  • Reads credentials

The file

Show its rules and text

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

20 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈16

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If multiple interpretations exist, present them - don't pick silently.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    If a simpler approach exists, say so.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    If something is unclear, stop.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    No features beyond what was asked.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    No abstractions for single-use code.

    line 22
  6. Distinctive:

    No error handling for impossible scenarios.

    line 24
  7. Distinctive:

    If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it.

    line 25
  8. Distinctive:

    Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.

    line 27
  9. Distinctive:

    When editing existing code:

    line 33
  10. Distinctive:

    Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.

    line 34
  11. Distinctive:

    Don't refactor things that aren't broken.

    line 35
  12. Distinctive:

    If you notice unrelated dead code, mention it - don't delete it.

    line 37
  13. Distinctive:

    When your changes create orphans:

    line 39
  14. Very specific:

    Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused.

    line 40
  15. Distinctive:

    Don't remove pre-existing dead code unless asked.

    line 41
  16. Very specific:

    Branches: Always branch from development.

    line 75
  17. Very specific:

    Run tasks via pnpm nx run/run-many/affected.

    line 94
  18. Very specific:

    Prefer existing skills before inventing workflows.

    line 102
  19. Distinctive:

    Before approving or modifying AI-powered code, always consider AI cost, token usage, repeated AI calls, cache opportunities, model-routing …

    line 139
  20. Distinctive:

    Validation: Run smallest relevant check.

    line 146

≈ “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

AGENTS.md

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Merge with project-specific instructions as needed.

Tradeoff: These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks, use judgment.

1. Think Before Coding

Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.

Before implementing:

  • State your assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask.
  • If multiple interpretations exist, present them - don't pick silently.
  • If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted.
  • If something is unclear, stop. Name what's confusing. Ask.

2. Simplicity First

Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.

  • No features beyond what was asked.
  • No abstractions for single-use code.
  • No "flexibility" or "configurability" that wasn't requested.
  • No error handling for impossible scenarios.
  • If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it.

Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.

3. Surgical Changes

Touch only what you must. Clean up only your own mess.

When editing existing code:

  • Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.
  • Don't refactor things that aren't broken.
  • Match existing style, even if you'd do it differently.
  • If you notice unrelated dead code, mention it - don't delete it.

When your changes create orphans:

  • Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused.
  • Don't remove pre-existing dead code unless asked.

The test: Every changed line should trace directly to the user's request.

4. Performance Under Stress

Every change must survive heavy load. Before finishing, mentally stress the code at ~1M concurrent or near-concurrent users and account for memory usage, CPU cost, and network round-trips — flag N+1 queries, unbounded loops, blocking I/O, retry storms, and missing TTL/pagination instead of shipping them.

5. Goal-Driven Execution

Define success criteria. Loop until verified.

Transform tasks into verifiable goals:

  • "Add validation" → "Write tests for invalid inputs, then make them pass"
  • "Fix the bug" → "Write a test that reproduces it, then make it pass"
  • "Refactor X" → "Ensure tests pass before and after"

For multi-step tasks, state a brief plan:

1. [Step] → verify: [check]
2. [Step] → verify: [check]
3. [Step] → verify: [check]

Strong success criteria let you loop independently. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.


These guidelines are working if: fewer unnecessary changes in diffs, fewer rewrites due to overcomplication, and clarifying questions come before implementation rather than after mistakes.

6. Git Workflow

Full rules: docs/en/how-to/contributors/branching.md

Branches: Always branch from development. PRs target development. main is release-only — merged by maintainers only; pushing to main triggers the release pipeline.

Branch naming: feature/, fix/, docs/, refactor/ + short kebab slug (e.g., feature/agent-browse-filters).

Conventional Commits are required — they drive automated version bumps and CHANGELOG quality:

PrefixVersion impactWhen to use
feat:minor bumpNew user-visible capability
fix: · perf: · security:patch bumpBug fix / performance / security hardening
refactor: · docs: · test: · chore: · ci:no bumpInternal, no user-visible impact
feat!: or footer BREAKING CHANGE:major bumpBreaking API or contract change

Non-conventional commits produce "version bump only" changelogs. Every user-facing change must use feat: or fix:.

<!-- nx configuration start--><!-- Leave the start & end comments to automatically receive updates. -->

Nx

  • Run tasks via pnpm nx run/run-many/affected. Never guess flags — use nx_docs or --help.
  • Scaffold: invoke nx-generate skill first. Explore: invoke nx-workspace skill first.
  • Plugin docs: node_modules/@nx/<plugin>/PLUGIN.md (skip if missing).
  • nx_docs: use for advanced config, migrations, edge cases. Skip for basic commands.

Operating Model

Instructions: AGENTS.md · Runtime: .codex/config.toml · Roles: .codex/agents/*.toml · Skills: .agents/skills/* .claude/skills/* .gemini/skills/*

Prefer existing skills before inventing workflows. Keep changes minimal, local, reversible. Preserve product/UI/test/Supabase boundaries. Docs: operational and concrete, no marketing language.

Roles: ci-monitor — CI/pipeline failures · explorer — trace paths, no edits · reviewer — arch/release/security risk · worker — implement once path is clear

LenserFight

Stack: Nx monorepo · apps/web entry · supabase/ DB · Supabase backend.

Layers (low→high): domain → api → data → features · infra · providers | cross-cut: shared types ui utils

Rules: Respect Nx boundaries · no domain logic in UI/routes · RLS-first Supabase · assess migration blast radius · edit existing libs before creating · placement before implementation.

Mobile env: No import.meta.env in Metro/Hermes. Use process.env.EXPO_PUBLIC_*. Add .native.tsx stubs for web-only barrel exports.

Skills

TaskSkill
Repo shape/cycles/tagsrepo-architecture-auditor
Feature placementfeature-slice-designer · repo-performance-guard
Responsibility/couplinggrasp-ooad-review
Vite/React perf†vite-performance-engineer · react-vite-performance-reviewer
Tailwind/UX/a11y/tokenstailwind-ui-ux-reviewer · ui-contract-guard
i18n/locale/SEOapps-language-rules · language-integrator
Mobile design/impl/productmobile-app-designer · mobile-app-integrator · mobile-app-product-owner
Mobile perf/locale†mobile-app-reviewer · react-native-performance-reviewer · mobile-language-checker · mobile-ruleset
Testsunit-test-planner · unit-tester
Deep review/securitydeep-code-reviewer · security-reviewer
DTOs/contracts/datacontract-dto-consistency-reviewer · api-contract-reviewer · repository-pattern-reviewer
DB/RLS/indexessupabase-schema-reviewer · database-schema-reviewer · supabase-rls-security-reviewer · supabase-index-trigger-reviewer · supabase-api-rpc-reviewer
Migration riskmigration-risk-reviewer
AI cost / token wasteai-cost-manager-reducer
Docs (refactor / new pages)docs-manager
Commits/docs/productsmart-commit · docs-publication-manager · product-owner-decider · release-readiness-reviewer

† Enforce before approving any React/Vite or React Native/Expo change.

Before approving or modifying AI-powered code, always consider AI cost, token usage, repeated AI calls, cache opportunities, model-routing efficiency, and whether the optimization preserves the full reasoning chain and system correctness.

Teams (cross-layer only)

supabase-platform-team · frontend-experience-team · feature-delivery-team · release-governance-team · architecture-review-team

Delivery: Lead with findings · risky changes get rollout/rollback notes · DB work calls out grants/RLS/indexes/triggers · frontend calls out UX regressions/a11y/bundle · tests justify the layer.

Validation: Run smallest relevant check. State what was/wasn't validated. If CI wasn't run, say so.

<!-- nx configuration end-->

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.