Balance the AI-instruction filenames orient.py detects (don't single out one vendor) #49
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Problem
AGENTS.md forbids pinning a lesson to one LLM vendor and hardcoding one tool's config filename. The shipped
orient.py(M23) detects AI-instruction files by hardcodingAGENTS.mdANDCLAUDE.md(one vendor's name) with noGEMINI.md/.cursor/Copilot equivalents, under a comment claiming it's "tool- and language-agnostic on purpose." Its forge detection is balanced (.github/.gitea/.gitlab), but its AI-instruction detection is not.Evidence
modules/23-working-with-existing-codebases/lab/orient.py(~lines 52-53):"AGENTS.md": …,"CLAUDE.md": …. (Weaker, largely defensible: M22lab/suspicious-skill/SKILL.mdis a real on-disk specimen filename; M27llm_judge.py"OpenAI-style /chat/completions" is an env-var-driven wire-format label the README already flags "not branded.")Why it matters
A detection script must name real filenames to function, but the asymmetry (only one vendor's AI file beyond AGENTS.md) cuts against the vendor-neutral promise in a shipped artifact.
Proposed change
orient.py, ADD the sibling AI-instruction filenames to balance the set — e.g.GEMINI.md,.cursorrules/.cursor/rules,copilot-instructions— rather than removingCLAUDE.md(removing it would degrade a real scanner; CLAUDE.md is a common real file).SKILL.mdas "this vendor's format; yours may differ (Module 21)."Acceptance criteria
orient.pydetects a balanced set of AI-instruction filenames (not just AGENTS.md + one vendor).CLAUDE.mddetection is retained (the scanner still surfaces it).Affected files
modules/23-working-with-existing-codebases/lab/orient.py(optional:modules/22-.../README.md)References
Source finding F16 (realVotes 2/3 — one lens judged it adequately handled in-source; lower confidence). The fix here corrects the original finding's "detect only AGENTS.md" suggestion, which would have degraded the scanner.
Filed from an adversarial multi-agent course review (217 raw findings → 54 adversarially-verified survivors). Scoped for manual review; intentionally not auto-assigned to an agent.