Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're in a transition phase today where agents need special guidance to understand a codebase that go beyond what humans need. Before long, I don't think they will. This isn't guaranteed. Just like we will never have fully self-driving cars, we likely won't have fully human quality coders. Right now AI coders are going to be another tool in the tool bucket.
Have you taken a Waymo?
AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
41–50 of 398 posts
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#42In any case, I increasingly question the use of an agents file. What's the point, then the agent forget about them every few prompt, and need to be constantly reminded to go through the file again and again?
Another thought: are folks committing their AGENTS.md? If so, do you feel comfortable with the world knowing that a project was built with the help of AI? If not, how do you durably persist the file?
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#43We're in a transition phase today where agents need special guidance to understand a codebase that go beyond what humans need. Before long, I don't think they will. I think we should focus on our own project documentation being comprehensive (e.g. the contents of this AGENTS.md are appropriate to live somewhere in our documentation), but we should always write for humans. The LLM's whole shtick is that it can read an…
> We're in a transition phase today where agents need special guidance to understand a codebase that go beyond what humans need. Before long, I don't think they will. This isn't guaranteed. Just like we will never have fully self-driving cars, we likely won't have fully human quality coders. Right now AI coders are going to be another tool in the tool bucket.
If we're otherwise assuming it reads and follows an AGENTS.md file, then following the README.md should be within reach.
I think our task is to ensure that our README.md is suitable for any developer to onboard into the codebase. We can then measure our LLMs (and perhaps our own documentation) by if that guidance is followed.
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#44We're in a transition phase today where agents need special guidance to understand a codebase that go beyond what humans need. Before long, I don't think they will. I think we should focus on our own project documentation being comprehensive (e.g. the contents of this AGENTS.md are appropriate to live somewhere in our documentation), but we should always write for humans. The LLM's whole shtick is that it can read an…
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just understanding the codebase, it's also stylistic things, like "use this assert library to write tests", or "never write comments", or "use structured logging". It's just as useful --- more so even --- on fresh projects without much code.
... most of which would also be valuable information to communicate when onboarding new devs.
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just understanding the codebase, it's also stylistic things, like "use this assert library to write tests", or "never write comments", or "use structured logging". It's just as useful --- more so even --- on fresh projects without much code.
... most of which would also be valuable information to communicate when onboarding new devs.
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#47I'm still not convinced that separating README.md and AGENTS.md is a good idea.
It is. README is for humans, AGENTS / etc is for LLMs. Document how to use and install your tool in the readme. Document how to compile, test, architecture decisions, coding standards, repository structure etc in the agents doc.
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to include specific coding style rules in your README? Or other really agent-specific things like guidance about spawning sub-agents? They are separate for a good reason. My CLAUDE.md and README.md look very different.
Why would you publish agent specific things to your codebase? That's personal preference and doesn't have anything to do with the project.
Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#49Re: AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents
#50
Agent only reads the file if its role is defined there.
Inside project directory, we've a dot folder where coding agents state is stored.
Our process kicks off with an `/init` command, which triggers a deep analysis of an entire repository. Instead of just indexing the raw code, the agent generates a high-level summary of its architecture and logic. These summaries appear in the editor as toggleable "ghost comments." They're a metadata layer, not part of the source code, so they are never committed in actual code. A sophisticated mapping system precisely links each summary annotation to the relevant lines of code.
This architecture is the solution to a problem we faced early on: running Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) directly on source code never gave us the results we needed.
Our current system uses a hybrid search model. We use the AST for fast, literal lexical searches, while RAG is reserved for performing semantic searches on our high-level summaries. This makes all the difference. If you ask, "How does authentication work in this app?", a purely lexical search might only find functions containing the word `login` and functions/classes appearing in its call hierarchy. Our semantic search, however, queries the narrative-like summaries. It understands the entire authentication flow like it's reading a story, piecing together the plot points from different files to give you a complete picture.
It works like magic.