Write Agents Md

Write AGENTS.md

Create or review small, focused agent instruction files. This is a guided-writing skill, not an auto-generator: gather evidence read-only, ask only what the evidence cannot answer, and leave every permission and deletion decision with the user.

Talk to the user in the language they use. Instruction files are written in the language the user prefers for those files — this may differ from the conversation language. Follow the stated preference; ask only if it is unknown and it matters.

Why Small

Loaded instructions consume context even when irrelevant to the current task; contradictory rules can mislead. Loading scope varies by tool. See PRINCIPLES.md for the reasoning.

Establish Scope

Use the request and available context to establish:

• Scope: global (user-level preferences and standing permissions), project (repository root), or nested (subdirectory or package).
• Mode: create a new file, or review an existing one.
• Target file(s): which file(s) will be written or edited.
• File language: the language the user wants those files in.

Ask only about what is unknown and changes the output or touches permissions. If the request plus evidence already answers it, proceed — never run a full interview by default.

Read only what the scope needs:

• Global: the existing file, if reviewing. Global instructions are the user's own preferences and permissions — do not scan repositories to source them; ask the user instead.
• Project / nested: applicable parent and existing instruction files, relevant README, manifests, CI config, and directory layout. Check inherited constraints before adding duplicate or conflicting rules. In reviews, tie further reads or delegated checks to a material KEEP/DROP/REWRITE decision. Stop once those decisions are supported. If a material claim remains unverifiable after targeted checks, report it as unresolved rather than guessing. Do not audit the full codebase or inventory omitted details by default; investigate omissions only when they could mislead the intended workflow or the user asks for broader coverage.

Create Path (new file)

Build the file from exactly two sources:

1. Verifiable facts — commands and layout observed in manifests, CI, or scripts; cite what you saw ("package.json shows pnpm").
2. Explicit user preferences — stated in this conversation or in applicable instruction files. Do not copy permissions or preferences from unrelated scopes.

Never invent a command, preference, permission, or approval policy because a template has a slot for it. Raise missing authorization or completion conditions only when they affect the intended workflow; offer options, not silent defaults. An absent command does not by itself require a question. A fresh create needs no KEEP/DROP table; there is nothing prior to preserve.

Review Path (existing file)

Produce two artifacts, in order.

1. Decision table — one row per instruction in the existing file, no omissions:

Assess each row along five dimensions and surface the evidence that matters:

• Provenance — separate current implementation facts, explicit user intent, and historical origin. Code can show a feature exists, not its research role, maturity, or why the user wanted a rule. Qualify unsupported interpretations or omit them; ask only when intent affects the decision. State unknown history once for affected rules rather than inventing it or searching old sessions indefinitely. Assess the weakness the rule currently guards against, whether it still occurs, and any side effects; distinguish this assessment from historical intent. Do not claim newer models no longer need a rule without evidence.
• Boundary strength — could absolute wording halt work the user wants continued? Examine effects, scope, and exceptions, not just tool names. Location or tool restrictions may be intentional; do not replace them without confirmation. Ask about genuine ambiguities, such as whether a test that writes cache files needs approval.
• Missing permissions — what the agent may need to do that nothing authorizes or forbids. Offer these as options to confirm; never adopt permissions the user has not given, and never assume the user wants standing permissions you have seen elsewhere.
• Missing completion conditions — is it clear when to continue, finish, or seek human review? Where relevant, propose bounded verification and honest reporting of unresolved blockers rather than endless retries; do not treat every recoverable failure as a reason to stop.
• Context economics — accuracy alone does not earn a rule a place in the file. Identify the concrete mistake it prevents or repeated discovery it saves, weighed against loading and maintenance costs. Paths, commands, and interfaces may earn their space; easily rediscovered implementation snapshots may not. Explain retention value, not just "exists in code". Vague or redundant rules are DROP candidates, not automatic deletions; preserve explicit preferences and resolve conflicting intent with the user. Do not shorten the file merely to meet a size target.

2. Complete replacement draft — the full file after applying the table; every original instruction accounted for as kept, rewritten, or dropped pending the user's confirmation. When a rule's intent or authorization is unclear, ask directly. Keep open questions outside the proposed file and preserve the existing boundary in a conservative draft; do not replace an active restriction with a pending marker.

Apply and Verify

Respect review-only requests. Show the draft (plus the decision table for reviews) before applying changes; use a diff when helpful. Write only with explicit approval. Once a specific change is approved, do not re-ask.

Before delivery, check that intent, scope, and permissions match the evidence or approved decisions, commands are not invented, file language is correct, and local references resolve. Remove template placeholders from final files; do not apply unresolved permission changes. If writing, read the files back and repeat these checks. State anything unverified; distinguish a command found in configuration from one actually tested. End at the requested proposal or applied change, without extra investigation once checks pass.

Output Shape

• Templates are optional: use the project skeleton only for project files and the section skeleton only when splitting is useful. Take what fits the scope, drop the rest. No fixed line count, required section set, blanket ban on paths, or mandated link tree; when linking, point directly at the file that holds the answer instead of building chains of pointers.
• Split into separate files only when the content earns it; a single small file is fine, and stable load-bearing paths may stay if the user wants them.
• No generic engineering precepts ("write clean code") and no heavyweight process frameworks.
• Cross-tool adaptation (symlink / import / flag) is offered only if the user works with other tools and wants it — see TOOL-CONVENTIONS.md.

References

• PRINCIPLES.md — why instruction files stay small; read when judging what to keep or when the user pushes back on trimming
• TOOL-CONVENTIONS.md — per-tool file names and loading behavior, an unverified starting point; read when adapting output for a specific platform
• EXAMPLES.md — short worked examples: global review, project create, simplification; read when drafting