landing-ailanding-ai/ade-python/.github/copilot-instructions.md

ade-python

Copilot instructions1k starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

This is the LandingAI ADE Python SDK. client.v2 is a hand-maintained ergonomic layer (unified Job polling, dual-host routing, schema coercion) that is intentionally not described by the OpenAPI spec. Generated reference models live under specs/generated/; the shipped, more-ergonomic surface lives under src/landingaiade/. When reviewing, do not report the shipped V2 surface as "diverging from the spec" when the divergence is this deliberate ergonomic layer. PRs authored by spec-sync[bot] on branch spec-sync/v2 arrive as up to two commits, in this order:

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

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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

Distinctive:
When reviewing, do not report the shipped V2 surface as "diverging from the spec" when the divergence is this deliberate ergonomic layer.
line 9
Distinctive:
When performing a code review on these PRs:
line 26
Very specific:
Do not review the spec snapshot files at all — specs/v2-aide.json, specs/v1-ade.json, and everything under specs/_generated/.
line 36

≈ “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

Copilot instructions — landing-ai/ade-python

Repository context

This is the LandingAI ADE Python SDK. client.v2 is a hand-maintained ergonomic layer (unified Job polling, dual-host routing, schema coercion) that is intentionally not described by the OpenAPI spec. Generated reference models live under specs/_generated/; the shipped, more-ergonomic surface lives under src/landingai_ade/. When reviewing, do not report the shipped V2 surface as "diverging from the spec" when the divergence is this deliberate ergonomic layer.

Reviewing automated spec-sync PRs

PRs authored by spec-sync[bot] on branch spec-sync/v2 arrive as up to two commits, in this order:

Mechanical snapshot — chore(spec-sync): update V2 spec snapshot + regenerated reference models. Touches specs/v2-aide.json and specs/_generated/ only. By design it does not wire the client: no new resources, methods, public types, exports, tests, or docs. This is expected and correct.
AI wiring — feat(spec-sync): wire client.v2 to spec diff (AI). Adds the client resources / methods / types / exports / tests / docs for the spec diff. This commit may be absent: workflow-only drift and AI no-ops legitimately produce a mechanical-only PR.

When performing a code review on these PRs:

Review the PR in its current state, as a whole. If only the mechanical snapshot commit is present, do not report the absence of client wiring (missing resources, methods, public types, exports, tests, or docs) as an issue — a follow-up wiring commit handles it, or the drift is intentionally mechanical-only. Treat the un-wired snapshot as complete for now, and do not enumerate the wiring a later commit is expected to add.
Once the wiring commit is present, focus the review on whether the wired surface matches the spec diff: routes, parameter names, request/response fields, required-vs-optional, and sync/async (job) surface consistency.
Do not review the spec snapshot files at all — specs/v2-aide.json, specs/v1-ade.json, and everything under specs/_generated/. Skip them entirely and post no comments on their diffs: not on wording, structure, $refs, missing or updated schemas, typing, or anything else. They are a verbatim mirror of the upstream OpenAPI spec (fetched live from staging and regenerated on every sync), so they cannot be edited in this repo — any spec issue must be fixed upstream, not here. Everything else the PR touches stays in review scope — the hand-maintained client code and tests under src/ / tests/, plus the regenerated-but-reviewable surface docs api.md, README.md, and files under docs/ (the spec-sync wiring commit updates these, and they should be reviewed).

Download now (ZIP)

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.

Check your setup, free