agentic-code
AGENTS.md51 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use the repository's task definitions and skills to complete the requested outcome with the minimum sufficient work and observable verification. For repository work: Before loading task-analysis.md, check whether repository inspection is needed to decide how to execute the request. A gate is justified when it protects: A user's go-ahead authorizes the next work; it does not fix the technical choices in a design, ADR, or plan. Read existing approval records by meaning, and ask again only when the authority they…
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-rulesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- metacognitionSkill
- testingSkill
- testing-strategySkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
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
- Distinctive: line 5
Use the repository's task definitions and skills to complete the requested outcome with the minimum sufficient work and observable …
- Distinctive: line 10
Treat reuse and no-change as valid conclusions when repository evidence shows the outcome is already satisfied.
- Distinctive: line 12
Consider work complete when the requested behavior is observable through the narrowest sufficient verification boundary.
- Very specific: line 23
Before loading task-analysis.md, check whether repository inspection is needed to decide how to execute the request.
- Distinctive: line 25
If not, execute the request directly.
- Very specific: line 26
If yes, load .agents/tasks/task-analysis.md and use its result to select the path.
- Very specific: line 36
Follow .agents/workflows/agentic-coding.md after the user approves the recommended path.
- Distinctive: line 45
Read a task or skill at the point where its rules affect the next decision.
- Distinctive: line 46
When a task names required skills, confirm they are active before executing that task.
- Distinctive: line 64
Follow repository patterns and existing contracts.
- Distinctive: line 66
Run applicable repository checks before completion.
- Distinctive: line 71
Treat review findings as candidates:
- Distinctive: line 81
Before marking work complete:
- Distinctive: line 84
run the applicable repository checks.
- Distinctive: line 86
update required documentation when the change affects its consumer.
≈ “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
AGENTS.md
Goal
Use the repository's task definitions and skills to complete the requested outcome with the minimum sufficient work and observable verification.
Operating Boundaries
- Preserve the user's requirements and non-goals, explicit constraints, repository contracts, and user authority.
- Treat reuse and no-change as valid conclusions when repository evidence shows the outcome is already satisfied.
- Return to the user when progress would change the outcome, requirements, non-goals, or explicit constraints the user set, or an actual consumer contract the user did not ask to change; when it needs authority only the user holds; or when it would change irreversible external state without the user's authorization.
- Consider work complete when the requested behavior is observable through the narrowest sufficient verification boundary.
Session Setup
For repository work:
- Inspect the project structure.
- Load
.agents/skills/metacognition/SKILL.mdand keep it active for the session.
Task Routing
Before loading task-analysis.md, check whether repository inspection is needed to decide how to execute the request.
- If not, execute the request directly.
- If yes, load
.agents/tasks/task-analysis.mdand use its result to select the path.
Small / Single Task
- Load the task definition that owns the requested result.
- Load only the skills required for the current decision or action.
- Execute directly without the workflow.
Medium / Large Work
- Follow
.agents/workflows/agentic-coding.mdafter the user approves the recommended path. - Medium means one coherent outcome coordinates across a responsibility boundary or requires a durable design decision.
- Large means multiple independently valuable outcomes require separate design decisions.
- File count is supporting evidence, not the scale rule.
Task Definitions and Skills
- Task definitions describe the result, required inputs, execution criteria, and completion evidence for one kind of work.
- Skills supply reusable judgment and quality rules.
- Read a task or skill at the point where its rules affect the next decision; do not preload future phases.
- When a task names required skills, confirm they are active before executing that task.
Gates and Escalation
A gate is justified when it protects:
- user authority;
- an irreversible action;
- the user's requirements and non-goals;
- a machine-consumed contract;
- observable completion evidence.
A user's go-ahead authorizes the next work; it does not fix the technical choices in a design, ADR, or plan. Read existing approval records by meaning, and ask again only when the authority they grant does not cover the next action. Accept semantically equivalent evidence unless software requires an exact schema.
Resolve reversible repository-local ambiguity and outcome-preserving technical changes, including superseding a recorded design choice, from available evidence: update the affected documents and proof, then continue. Other changes return to the user as Operating Boundaries states.
Implementation and Verification
- Follow repository patterns and existing contracts.
- Prove each changed behavioral claim with one owning test at the narrowest boundary where it is observable; use the narrowest established check for changes without a behavioral claim.
- Run applicable repository checks before completion.
- Report unavailable verification or residual risk rather than creating unrequested infrastructure.
Review
Treat review findings as candidates:
- Apply findings required by the requirements, repository rules, the current design, or observable correctness.
- Decline findings that add optional scope, reverse a non-goal, duplicate proof, or cost more than their observable effect justifies.
- Return for user decision findings whose resolution would make a change that Operating Boundaries returns to the user.
A repeated preference without new evidence does not block progress.
Completion
Before marking work complete:
- confirm the requested outcome and task exit conditions;
- run the applicable repository checks;
- record verification evidence and remaining limitations;
- update required documentation when the change affects its consumer.
File Organization
.agents/tasks/— task definitions.agents/workflows/agentic-coding.md— coordinated Medium/Large workflow.agents/skills/— reusable decision and quality rules.agents/context-maps/task-skills-matrix.yaml— task-to-skill mapping
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.

