metaswarm / templates
AGENTS.md426 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
This project uses metaswarm, a multi-agent orchestration framework. It provides 22 agents, a 9-phase development workflow, and quality gates that enforce TDD, coverage thresholds, and spec-driven development. This is the default entry point. It primes the agent with relevant knowledge, guides you through scoping, and picks the right level of process for the task. Describe what you want built, include a Definition of Done, and ask for the full workflow: This triggers the full pipeline: Research, Plan, Design Review Gate,…
- Deletes or force-pushes
- Commits and pushes
Where files are headingNew AGENTS.md files have more rules about keeping secrets out of the code, and fewer about code style.
Of the AGENTS.md files we read, the 31,774 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
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/setup/templates/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- templates/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brainstorming-extensionSkill
- create-issueSkill
- design-review-gateSkill
- external-toolsSkill
- handling-pr-commentsSkill
- handoffSkill
- migrateSkill
- orchestrated-executionSkill
- plan-review-gateSkill
- pr-shepherdSkill
- setupSkill
- startSkill
- statusSkill
- visual-reviewSkill
The file
We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Very specific: line 56
If a GitHub Issue specifies different coverage requirements, update .coverage-thresholds.json to match before implementation begins.
- Very specific: line 70
When brainstorming writes and commits a project-sized design doc (see the metaswarm plugin's guides/workflow-enforcement.md):
- Distinctive: line 79
When writing-plans has written a plan, run the Plan Review Gate before writing-plans presents the plan: do not link the plan, ask the user …
- Very specific: line 92
NEVER: use --no-verify on git commits
- Distinctive: line 93
NEVER: use git push --force without explicit user approval
- Distinctive: line 94
ALWAYS: follow TDD -- write tests first, watch them fail, then implement
- Very specific: line 112
If external AI tools are configured (.metaswarm/external-tools.yaml), the orchestrator can delegate implementation and review tasks to …
- Distinctive: line 128
All quality gates must pass before PR creation
≈ “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.
Files
Agent Instructions
This project uses metaswarm, a multi-agent orchestration framework. It provides 22 agents, a 9-phase development workflow, and quality gates that enforce TDD, coverage thresholds, and spec-driven development.
How to Work in This Project
Starting work
$startThis is the default entry point. It primes the agent with relevant knowledge, guides you through scoping, and picks the right level of process for the task.
For complex features (multi-file, spec-driven)
Describe what you want built, include a Definition of Done, and ask for the full workflow:
I want you to build [description]. [Tech stack, DoD items, file scope.]
Use the full metaswarm orchestration workflow.This triggers the full pipeline: Research, Plan, Design Review Gate, Work Unit Decomposition, Orchestrated Execution (4-phase loop per unit), Final Review, PR.
Available Skills
Codex discovers skills by their SKILL.md name field. Invoke with $name syntax.
| Invoke | Purpose |
$start | Begin tracked work on a task |
$setup | Interactive guided setup |
$brainstorming-extension | Refine an idea with design review gate |
$design-review-gate | Trigger design review gate (5 reviewers) |
$plan-review-gate | Adversarial plan review (3 reviewers) |
$orchestrated-execution | 4-phase execution loop per work unit |
$pr-shepherd | Monitor a PR through to merge |
$handling-pr-comments | Handle PR review comments |
$create-issue | Create a well-structured GitHub Issue |
$external-tools | External AI tool delegation |
$status | Run diagnostic checks |
$visual-review | Playwright screenshot capture |
Testing
- TDD is mandatory -- Write tests first, watch them fail, then implement
- 100% test coverage required -- Lines, branches, functions, and statements. Enforced via
.coverage-thresholds.jsonas a blocking gate before PR creation and task completion
<!-- TODO: Update these commands for your project's test runner -->- Test command:
npm test - Coverage command:
npm run test:coverage
Coverage
Coverage thresholds are defined in .coverage-thresholds.json -- this is the source of truth for coverage requirements.
If a GitHub Issue specifies different coverage requirements, update .coverage-thresholds.json to match before implementation begins. Do not silently use a different threshold.
Quality Gates
- Design Review Gate: 5-reviewer design review after a project-sized design doc is committed (
$design-review-gate) - Plan Review Gate: Adversarial review once the plan is written, before writing-plans presents the plan. 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) -- ALL must PASS before presenting the plan
- Coverage Gate: Reads
.coverage-thresholds.jsonand runs the enforcement command -- BLOCKING gate before PR creation
Workflow Enforcement (MANDATORY)
These rules override any conflicting instructions. They ensure the full metaswarm pipeline is followed.
After a Project-Sized Design Doc Is Committed
When brainstorming writes and commits a project-sized design doc (see the metaswarm plugin's guides/workflow-enforcement.md):
- STOP -- do NOT proceed directly to planning or implementation
- RUN the Design Review Gate -- invoke
$design-review-gate - WAIT for all 5 reviewers (PM, Architect, Designer, Security, CTO) to approve
- ONLY THEN proceed to planning/implementation
After Any Plan Is Created
When writing-plans has written a plan, run the Plan Review Gate before writing-plans presents the plan: do not link the plan, ask the user to review it, or offer an execution choice until all 3 reviewers PASS. See the metaswarm plugin's guides/workflow-enforcement.md.
- STOP -- do NOT present the plan to the user or begin implementation
- RUN the Plan Review Gate -- invoke
$plan-review-gate - WAIT for all 3 adversarial reviewers to PASS
- ONLY THEN present the plan to the user for approval
Coverage Source of Truth
.coverage-thresholds.json is the single source of truth for coverage requirements. No skill may skip it.
Agent Discipline
- NEVER use
--no-verifyon git commits - NEVER use
git push --forcewithout explicit user approval - ALWAYS follow TDD -- write tests first, watch them fail, then implement
- STAY within declared file scope
Delivery Scope & Review Iteration
Block delivery only for a credible normal-usage failure, a missing or contradictory requirement, a broken key happy path, or an important error or recovery-path failure. Every review finding carries a severity (critical/major/minor/nit); to block, a critical/major finding must also name what it protects (a user scenario, requirement or DoD item). Findings without protects are advisory, not blockers. After each review round the orchestrator decides whether to iterate, advance or escalate:
- No
blocker: yesfindings -> PASS, advance. Minor/nit findings become follow-ups (a BEADS task, or a GitHub issue if over a day). - Escalate to the human -> the same critical/major finding recurs after a fix attempt for it, two reviewers rate the same finding blocker vs. non-blocker, or the safety cap of 10 rounds is hit.
- Iterate (fix, re-validate, fresh review) -> this round fixed a critical/major finding, or 2+ independent reviewers reported blockers.
- Overengineering signal -> restate the DoD and re-classify each blocker against the policy; escalate if any still names a credible scenario, otherwise downgrade them to follow-ups and advance.
These rules apply in order, top to bottom (escalation is checked before iteration). A round that still has a blocker and matches none of them also iterates. If bd is unavailable, list follow-ups in a ### Follow-ups section.
Full policy, finding contract and ordered rule: guides/delivery-scope.md in the metaswarm plugin.
External Tools (Optional)
If external AI tools are configured (.metaswarm/external-tools.yaml), the orchestrator can delegate implementation and review tasks to Codex CLI and Gemini CLI for cost savings and cross-model adversarial review.
Guides
Development patterns and standards are documented in guides/:
agent-coordination.md-- Agent dispatch patternsbuild-validation.md-- Build and validation workflowcoding-standards.md-- Code style and conventionsgit-workflow.md-- Branching, commits, and PR conventionstesting-patterns.md-- TDD patterns and coverage enforcement
Code Quality
<!-- TODO: Update these for your project's language and tools -->- TypeScript strict mode, no
anytypes - ESLint + Prettier
- All quality gates must pass before PR creation
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.

