easyeda-mcp-pro
AGENTS.md67 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub
These instructions apply to .github/** and supplement the repository root AGENTS.md. Workflow and repository-control changes are policy changes. They can affect branch protection, security posture, dependency trust, release identity, provenance, registries, and public artifacts. Read these before material changes: Required status names are repository interfaces. - Keep the protected quality (24) context stable unless branch protection is intentionally migrated and verified in the same change. - Before renaming, deleting, or path-filtering an entire required workflow/job, verify how the live main…
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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- easyeda-bridge-extension/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- easyeda-component-reviewSkill
- easyeda-professional-layoutSkill
- easyeda-component-reviewSkill
- easyeda-professional-layoutSkill
- component-searchSkill
- design-validationSkill
- easyeda-component-reviewSkill
- easyeda-professional-layoutSkill
- easyeda-workflowSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. About 2 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈2
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Read these before material changes:
- Very specific: line 23
Keep the protected quality (24) context stable unless branch protection is intentionally migrated and verified in the same change.
- Distinctive: line 25
Before renaming, deleting, or path-filtering an entire required workflow/job, verify how the live main ruleset resolves the check.
- Distinctive: line 27
Avoid configurations that leave branch protection waiting forever for a required context that no longer runs.
- Very specific: line 29
Do not use continue-on-error, exclusions, or trigger narrowing to conceal a repository-owned test, audit, packaging, security, or release …
- Very specific: line 38
Use least-privilege permissions at workflow and job scope.
- Common: line 39
Keep checkout credentials disabled unless a reviewed mutation requires them.
- Common: line 40
Do not expose secrets to untrusted fork code or interpolate untrusted event data into shell commands without a safe boundary.
- Distinctive: line 43
Keep GitHub Actions SHA-pinned.
- Distinctive: line 76
Do not replay a previously successful publication mutation merely to repeat verification.
- Distinctive: line 79
Do not repoint immutable release tags, silently replace released assets, or publish from an unverified source revision.
- Distinctive: line 84
When workflow behavior changes:
- Distinctive: line 86
update the corresponding policy/runbook documentation and repository-policy tests when required.
- Distinctive: line 88
keep scheduled/advisory automation distinct from genuinely merge-critical validation.
- Distinctive: line 89
prefer reusable workflow/composite-action boundaries only when they clarify ownership rather than hiding critical execution flow.
- Very specific: line 102
Before handoff or PR creation, run pnpm verify.
≈ “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
CI and Release Automation Instructions
These instructions apply to .github/** and supplement the repository root AGENTS.md.
Boundary
Workflow and repository-control changes are policy changes. They can affect branch protection, security posture, dependency trust, release identity, provenance, registries, and public artifacts.
Read these before material changes:
docs/REPOSITORY_GOVERNANCE.mddocs/RELEASE_POLICY.mddocs/RELEASE_PROCESS.mddocs/RELEASE_VERIFICATION.mddocs/release-ci-runbook.mddocs/security-architecture.md
Required-check integrity
Required status names are repository interfaces.
- Keep the protected
quality (24)context stable unless branch protection is intentionally migrated and verified in the same change. - Before renaming, deleting, or path-filtering an entire required workflow/job, verify how the live
mainruleset resolves the check. - Avoid configurations that leave branch protection waiting forever for a required context that no longer runs.
- Do not use
continue-on-error, exclusions, or trigger narrowing to conceal a repository-owned test, audit, packaging, security, or release failure.
External telemetry is different from repository-owned validation. The current policy keeps local Vitest coverage thresholds, changed-line LCOV enforcement, and report validation merge-critical while Codecov upload telemetry is non-blocking. Do not reverse that policy accidentally through workflow refactoring.
Permissions and untrusted input
- Use least-privilege
permissionsat workflow and job scope. - Keep checkout credentials disabled unless a reviewed mutation requires them.
- Do not expose secrets to untrusted fork code or interpolate untrusted event data into shell commands without a safe boundary.
- Preserve separation between untrusted validation and privileged publication.
- Keep GitHub Actions SHA-pinned; do not replace immutable pins with floating tags for convenience.
Security and dependency automation
Do not weaken:
- CodeQL/Semgrep/static analysis;
- Dependency Review and repository dependency-audit policy;
- secret scanning/hygiene;
- workflow security checks;
- container/image security where configured;
- runtime/dependency pin parity.
An external scanner outage is not evidence that repository security policy should be bypassed. Record the external failure separately from repository-owned gate results.
Release and publication
Release workflows are privileged supply-chain code.
Preserve:
- exact source/tag/channel identity;
- stable vs prerelease channel separation;
- immutable version/tag expectations;
- npm provenance/trusted publication requirements;
- SBOM generation and retention;
- GitHub attestation/provenance evidence;
- extension artifact identity;
- GHCR exact/channel tag semantics;
- stable MCP Registry promotion rules;
- post-publication verification and recovery semantics.
Do not replay a previously successful publication mutation merely to repeat verification. Follow the documented recovery path.
Do not repoint immutable release tags, silently replace released assets, or publish from an unverified source revision.
Workflow maintenance
When workflow behavior changes:
- update the corresponding policy/runbook documentation and repository-policy tests when required;
- preserve stable artifact names/evidence contracts consumed by downstream jobs or release tooling;
- keep scheduled/advisory automation distinct from genuinely merge-critical validation;
- prefer reusable workflow/composite-action boundaries only when they clarify ownership rather than hiding critical execution flow.
Validation
For workflow changes, run the repository's local hook/security tooling applicable to GitHub Actions, then at minimum:
pnpm format:check
pnpm verify:fastBefore handoff or PR creation, run pnpm verify.
A YAML parser passing is not enough. Validate GitHub Actions semantics, permissions, required-check behavior, and any release/security contract affected by the change.
Definition of done
A CI/release change is complete only when workflow syntax, security linting, required-check behavior, permissions, evidence/artifact contracts, release identity, and documentation agree.
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.

