agentleFS
matsuzaka-yukimatsuzaka-yuki/Mizuki/CLAUDE.md

Mizuki

CLAUDE.md34 starsChanged 15 months agoApache-2.0View 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

1 other project uses a version of this.

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. LyraVoid/Mizuki★ 1.9k100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 0

    None found.

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

The file

Show its rules and text

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

19 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 3 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.

  • 3

    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. Distinctive:

    If the project has no test infrastructure and the task is exploratory, state success criteria in plain language instead (e.g., "verify: …

    line 63
  17. Very specific:

    All API keys, tokens, passwords, private keys, database connection strings, and similar secrets must be managed via environment variables …

    line 69
  18. Very specific:

    Ensure .env is added to .gitignore.

    line 70
  19. Distinctive:

    If you discover sensitive data that has already been committed, immediately alert me so I can rotate the key and clean up the Git history.

    line 72

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
CLAUDE.md

CLAUDE.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. 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.

If the project has no test infrastructure and the task is exploratory, state success criteria in plain language instead (e.g., "verify: running curl /api/users returns 200 with expected JSON").

5. Security Baseline

Never commit keys or sensitive credentials to the repository.

  • All API keys, tokens, passwords, private keys, database connection strings, and similar secrets must be managed via environment variables or .env files.
  • Ensure .env is added to .gitignore.
  • If any sensitive information needs to be included in the code to function, you must ask me first before committing. Do not decide on your own.
  • If you discover sensitive data that has already been committed, immediately alert me so I can rotate the key and clean up the Git history.

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.

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.