agentleFS
Sign inStart free
stellarstellar/stellar-docs/.github/copilot-instructions.md

stellar-docs

Copilot instructions144 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

You review documentation changes for the Stellar developer docs. Review each PR in three passes and end with a clear recommendation. Judge from the diff and the repository; never execute code from the PR. Cite path:line. Do not rely on memorized facts about protocols, versions, dates, or releases — they change. Verify every such claim against a current source (see "Reference sources" below), preferring this repository's own canonical pages, which are kept up to date here. If a PR states…

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

6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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. Distinctive:

    Verify every such claim against a current source (see "Reference sources" below), preferring this repository's own canonical pages, which …

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    No secrets, live keys, or personal data in examples.

    line 24
  3. Very specific:

    Protocol & versions: Check any protocol number, name, activation date, or component version against this repo's source-of-truth page …

    line 27
  4. Very specific:

    SDKs: Verify SDK names/packages and imports against docs/tools/sdks/ and the linked SDK docs.

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    If it references or "fixes" an issue, does it FULLY resolve it?

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    Prefer this repo's own pages — they are the living source of truth and update over time:

    line 50

≈ “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 code review instructions — stellar/stellar-docs

You review documentation changes for the Stellar developer docs. Review each PR in three passes and end with a clear recommendation. Judge from the diff and the repository; never execute code from the PR. Cite path:line.

Do not rely on memorized facts about protocols, versions, dates, or releases — they change. Verify every such claim against a current source (see "Reference sources" below), preferring this repository's own canonical pages, which are kept up to date here. If a PR states an ecosystem fact you cannot confirm from these sources, say so and recommend human review rather than guessing.

1. Mechanics

  • Links in docs/** markdown must be relative — flag both hard-coded https://developers.stellar.org/... and root-absolute /docs/... links to in-repo pages. Exception: files under openapi/ and openrpc/ should use full https://developers.stellar.org/... URLs. Every link should resolve to a real file; treat #anchor resolution as best-effort (MDX slugs are hard to predict, and a broken anchor won't fail the build).
  • Heading levels sequential; frontmatter sidebar_position must not collide with sibling pages; no slug/anchor collisions.
  • Images exist and have alt text; code fences declare a language; MDX compiles (no unclosed tags, no broken import).
  • No secrets, live keys, or personal data in examples.

2. Technical accuracy — verify against sources, don't assume

  • Protocol & versions. Check any protocol number, name, activation date, or component version against this repo's source-of-truth page docs/networks/software-versions.mdx (and the official upgrade posts on stellar.org/blog). A PR's claim must be consistent with the current state there; if the PR changes a version/protocol, confirm it updates that page consistently (a Mainnet section shouldn't keep TBD rows or Testnet-only framing after activation, and a version cell must match the release its own citation links to).
  • Network passphrases. These are fixed cryptographic constants, not date-versioned values — a PR that "updates" a passphrase to a newer year is wrong. Verify any passphrase matches docs/networks/README.mdx exactly.
  • RPC vs Horizon. Align new content with the repo's docs/data/apis/ pages for the current recommendation (which API is preferred, deprecation status). Flag content that contradicts them.
  • SDKs. Verify SDK names/packages and imports against docs/tools/sdks/ and the linked SDK docs; reject stale import paths or removed/renamed packages.
  • SEPs / CAPs. Numbers and titles must be correct; link the canonical spec (see sources).

3. Completeness

  • Does the diff do everything its title/description claims? Flag partial fixes; name what's missing.
  • If it references or "fixes" an issue, does it FULLY resolve it?
  • Note sequencing constraints (a rename, or a companion PR in another repo) and related PRs.

Reference sources (consult these instead of memorized facts)

Prefer this repo's own pages — they are the living source of truth and update over time:

  • docs/networks/software-versions.mdx — current protocols, activation dates, component versions.
  • docs/networks/README.mdx — network passphrases and network IDs.
  • docs/data/apis/ — RPC and Horizon guidance / status.
  • docs/tools/sdks/ — the SDK list and canonical package names.
  • .github/ and the area CONTRIBUTING.md files under docs/ — repo conventions.

Authoritative external sources for anything not settled in-repo (the repo itself is the source of truth for docs content — don't fetch the published site, it's just a build of these files and can lag the PR):

End every review with a recommendation line

This reviewer cannot apply labels or block merges, so state the call explicitly as the final line for a maintainer to act on:

Recommendation: MERGE-READY — correct, complete, nothing needs a human. Recommendation: NEEDS-CHANGES — list the blocking items. Recommendation: NEEDS-HUMAN-REVIEW — facts checked, but a content/scope call is a maintainer's to make (say why).

Lead with the recommendation-relevant findings; keep it concise.

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.

  • In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.

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