agentleFS
priyanshu-aryapriyanshu-arya/LinkedIn_Automation/AGENTS.md

LinkedIn_Automation

AGENTS.md0 starsChanged 58 days agoMITView on GitHub

Project-level instructions, auto-loaded by Codex CLI/IDE at the start of every session in this repository. This mirrors CLAUDE.md (Claude Code's equivalent auto-loaded file) — if you edit one, update the other. This repository's behavior is fully documented, stage by stage, in Documentation/Workflows/. Before doing any task here — drafting a post, scheduling, pulling analytics, profile work, research, engagement replies, repurposing, anything — you must: See §4 of the workflow overview for known gaps between the documented behavior and the current…

The file

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

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read Documentation/Workflows/00-Overview.md if you haven't already this session.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    If a request doesn't match any documented workflow, say so explicitly and ask how to proceed, rather than forcing it into the nearest …

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Run Codex from inside this repository (or with this directory as the workspace root) so its sandboxed filesystem/shell access is scoped to …

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Human-in-the-loop, always: No draft is ever scheduled or published without an explicit human approval step.

    line 26
  5. Very specific:

    Primary-source grounding: Never state a fact, statistic, or quote that wasn't actually verified via a live fetch — see REQUIREMENTS.md and …

    line 28

≈ “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.

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

AGENTS.md

Project-level instructions, auto-loaded by Codex CLI/IDE at the start of every session in this repository. This mirrors CLAUDE.md (Claude Code's equivalent auto-loaded file) — if you edit one, update the other.

Mandatory: follow the documented workflow for every task

This repository's behavior is fully documented, stage by stage, in Documentation/Workflows/. Before doing any task here — drafting a post, scheduling, pulling analytics, profile work, research, engagement replies, repurposing, anything — you must:

  1. Read Documentation/Workflows/00-Overview.md if you haven't already this session. It indexes all 13 feature workflows and the shared building blocks (research/idea pool, human approval gate, visual briefs, Buffer integration, playbook feedback loop) so you don't have to re-derive them.
  2. Identify which documented workflow matches the request — LinkedIn posting, X posting, profile optimization, LinkedIn/X analytics, content research, visual generation, Substack, story bank/hooks, quality/safety/originality tools, repurposing, engagement tools, or employee advocacy — and read that specific document before acting.
  3. Execute the task by following that document's stage order and the exact skill named for each stage (.claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md). Do not invent a shortcut, skip a documented stage (e.g. never skip /audit-draft or /review-drafts for content that's meant to go through them), or call a tool/API a stage doesn't document.
  4. Carry forward every hard rule the documentation states, even if the user doesn't repeat it: never fabricate a Buffer post id or metric, never set status: approved outside the review/approval step, never mark Substack content published without explicit user confirmation that they posted it themselves, never write a playbook rule without ≥3 verified samples, never present an unverified web claim as fact.
  5. If a request doesn't match any documented workflow, say so explicitly and ask how to proceed, rather than forcing it into the nearest workflow or inventing new behavior.

See §4 of the workflow overview for known gaps between the documented behavior and the current implementation — don't silently paper over those either; flag them the same way if they're relevant to a task.

Codex-specific notes

  • Codex doesn't have Claude Code's .claude/skills/ slash-command auto-triggering. When a documented workflow stage calls for a skill, open and follow that skill's SKILL.md directly (you have filesystem access to the repo), or tell the user which file you're following (e.g. "following the steps in .claude/skills/write-draft/SKILL.md").
  • If this session is connected only through the linkedin-vault MCP server's tools (list_notes / read_note / write_note / buffer_create_post / buffer_get_post_metrics / buffer_discover_channels, no direct filesystem skill access), follow mcp-server/DESKTOP-PROJECT-INSTRUCTIONS.md for the exact scheduling/analytics tool-call rules — it's already Claude-agnostic and written for exactly this case, so read it directly rather than re-deriving the same logic.
  • Register the same MCP server Claude Desktop uses (~/.codex/config.toml, see the README's Connecting to Codex section) if this session needs real Buffer scheduling/metrics rather than just vault file access.
  • Run Codex from inside this repository (or with this directory as the workspace root) so its sandboxed filesystem/shell access is scoped to the vault, matching how Claude Code's is scoped.

Ground rules carried from the rest of the repo

  • Human-in-the-loop, always. No draft is ever scheduled or published without an explicit human approval step. No autonomous mode exists in this repo — don't build a shortcut around this even if asked to "just post it."
  • The vault is the memory. State lives in Markdown note frontmatter (status field, folder location), not in a database or in your own context. Read the actual note before acting on it — don't assume its state from an earlier turn.
  • Primary-source grounding. Never state a fact, statistic, or quote that wasn't actually verified via a live fetch — see REQUIREMENTS.md and each skill's own SKILL.md for what counts as verified in that context.
  • Full spec: REQUIREMENTS.md. Full architecture, skills matrix, and setup: README.md.

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.