Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 522
- Last push
- Jun 13, 2026 (11d ago)
Risk flags
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Yanwei Cui, Wei Qiu, Ziyuan Li, Bing Zhu, Peiyang He
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Random rules improve a coding agent's task performance as much as expert-curated ones (both $+13.8$pp on a discriminative subset of SWE-bench Verified), and in our data every individually beneficial rule is a negative constraint ("do not refactor unrelated code"), while every individually harmful one is a positive directive ("follow code style"). We arrive at these findings through the first large-scale controlled st ...
udy of agent rule files (\texttt{CLAUDE.md}, \texttt{.cursorrules}, and the broader family of agent skills, plugin manifests, and persona definitions): we scrape 679 rule files (25{,}532 rules) from GitHub and conduct over 5{,}000 agent runs of Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-bench Verified. Three patterns emerge. (i) Rule polarity cleanly separates beneficial from harmful rules; we read this through the lens of potential-based reward shaping (PBRS). (ii) Performance gains are largely content-independent: random, shuffled, mismatched-domain, and unconverted-format rule files all match curated rules, pointing to a context priming mechanism. (iii) Individual rules often appear harmful in isolation yet do not visibly accumulate damage in ensemble: pass rates remain stable across rule counts from 0 to 50. These findings expose a hidden reliability risk in the rapidly growing ecosystem of community-authored rules and skills, and they yield a clear principle for safer agent configuration: constrain what agents must not do, rather than prescribing what they should.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Random rules improve a coding agent's task performance as much as expert-curated ones (both $+13.8$pp on a discriminative subset of SWE-bench Verified), and in our data every individually beneficial rule is a negative constraint ("do not refactor unrelated code"), while every individually harmful one is a positive directive ("follow code style").
yzhao062/agent-style is the best available implementation candidate based on ranking signals, but recommendation confidence is not yet high. CI workflows are present.
Open yzhao062/agent-styleHardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 3 links.
Utility signals: depth 65/100, grounding 75/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
21 writing rules for AI coding and writing agents. Drop-in for Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, and Aider, so their output reads like a tech pro.
Hardware requirements
No dependency manifest — manual reconstruction required
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.
No trustworthy model matches right now.
Search models on Hugging FaceNo trustworthy dataset matches right now.
Search datasets on Hugging FaceTasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.