habitrack
Copilot instructions8 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub
When generating a commit message, follow the Conventional Commits format. The commit message should be structured as follows: The type should be one of the following: The scope should be the name of the feature affected by the change (e.g. calendar, auth, habit, note, layout, etc.). The scope can also be omitted if the change affects multiple features. The body should consist of a short description of the change (up to three sentences) and a list of any breaking changes.
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 2,336 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.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .agents/skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .agents/skills/vercel-react-view-transitions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- animation-vocabularySkill
- apple-designSkill
- emil-design-engSkill
- find-animation-opportunitiesSkill
- improve-animationsSkill
- react-emailSkill
- react-routerSkill
- resendSkill
- review-animationsSkill
- supabase-postgres-best-practicesSkill
- supabase-serverSkill
- supabaseSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- vercel-react-view-transitionsSkill
- viteSkill
- vitestSkill
The file
We split this copilot-instructions.md into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 1
When generating a commit message, follow the Conventional Commits format.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 3,779 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.
Files
When generating a commit message, follow the Conventional Commits format. The commit message should be structured as follows:
<type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]The type should be one of the following:
{
"types": {
"feat": {
"description": "A new feature",
"title": "Features"
},
"fix": {
"description": "A bug fix",
"title": "Bug Fixes"
},
"docs": {
"description": "Documentation only changes",
"title": "Documentation"
},
"style": {
"description": "Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc)",
"title": "Styles"
},
"refactor": {
"description": "A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature",
"title": "Code Refactoring"
},
"perf": {
"description": "A code change that improves performance",
"title": "Performance Improvements"
},
"test": {
"description": "Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests",
"title": "Tests"
},
"build": {
"description": "Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies (example scopes: gulp, broccoli, npm)",
"title": "Builds"
},
"ci": {
"description": "Changes to our CI configuration files and scripts (example scopes: Travis, Circle, BrowserStack, SauceLabs)",
"title": "Continuous Integrations"
},
"chore": {
"description": "Other changes that don't modify src or test files",
"title": "Chores"
},
"revert": {
"description": "Reverts a previous commit",
"title": "Reverts"
}
}
}The scope should be the name of the feature affected by the change (e.g. calendar, auth, habit, note, layout, etc.). The scope can also be omitted if the change affects multiple features.
The body should consist of a short description of the change (up to three sentences) and a list of any breaking changes.
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.

