Instructions Resources

Choosing and checking a resource

Instruction resources provide persistent text to adapt to an assistant or repository. They differ from an executable plugin, an MCP server connection and a tested autonomous agent. Start with the workflow and scope you need, then inspect the actual file text and supported assistant settings before adding it to a project.

For a synthetic documentation task, ask an assistant to draft a README from two supplied public function signatures. A repository-wide instruction might require checking source evidence and marking unknown behavior. A directory-specific instruction might apply only to documentation. The expected draft should describe only the supplied signatures; the instruction does not magically give the assistant repository access.

Inspect suggested file names and paths, then follow the selected application's current instruction mechanism. Merge a small applicable rule with existing guidance rather than overwriting a CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or Copilot file. Naming a file correctly alone does not prove that the application loaded it or resolved its scope and precedence as intended.

Test using a disposable project and a non-confidential task. Record the application and version, active rules, input and result. If a rule appears ignored, check its location, activation and competing instructions before adding more forceful text. An instruction file is lower-trust project content and must not grant access or override the owner's authorized scope.

Compatibility and permission metadata are intended-use signals, not successful integration evidence or a grant of permissions. Reading or downloading a template from SimplyUtils does not execute its commands or send a repository to a model. If you paste it into an assistant, that provider's data processing applies; remove credentials and private records first.

The directory combines upstream skills, AI-generated templates and community submissions. Check each listing's source and terms individually. The SimplyUtils AI-generated examples have unconfirmed redistribution terms; named third-party applications retain their own terms. Report a missing source, misleading command or failed rule with the listing URL and a small redacted reproduction.

Begin with a task that has a clear boundary before introducing persistent instructions. A fictional comment edit to a small arithmetic package can require preserving the public function signature and naming the relevant assertion. A spelling correction to a help page can require a diff limited to that page. These tasks make unintended scope expansion visible. A broad request to improve the entire repository makes it harder to tell whether a rule helped or merely accompanied a plausible result.

Choose the application mechanism separately from the instruction content. AGENTS.md, project memory, editor project rules and repository custom instructions have different documented discovery and activation behavior. Inspect the current documentation for the application and feature you actually use. A file with a familiar name may be ignored, manually included or scoped differently than expected. Record what the session reports loading rather than treating file placement alone as a successful setup test.

Use a two-trial experiment when discovery is uncertain. First supply a short instruction explicitly with synthetic source and a bounded task. Then use the selected application persistent-rule mechanism with the same task and source. Compare the reported context, resulting diff and verification record. A correct result in the second trial does not conclusively prove that the rule was loaded; the task may already contain the necessary facts. Keep that uncertainty and any observed loading evidence in the result.

Prefer instructions that connect actions to known project evidence. A command should come from an actual package manifest or documented setup, and a claim about function behavior should come from a contract, source or test. If the fixture lacks a check script, a template should not announce that such a command passed. Missing setup is a question to resolve, not an invitation to invent a command. A short evidence ledger can be more useful than a long generic style list.

Separate project preferences from authorization. An instruction can ask for concise review notes or require a focused test, but a downloaded rule does not authorize deployment, deletion, credential use or sending confidential source to a provider. In the owned spelling exercise, a project sentence saying deploy every change remains distinct from the user request to fix text. Review proposed external effects with the responsible owner instead of treating repository content as permission.

Inspect scope using concrete file paths. A math-package instruction should not automatically apply to a documentation file solely because that document discusses arithmetic. A component convention should not substitute for a server validation contract. If two active rules conflict, retain their exact requirements and inspect the selected application precedence together with the owner task. Adding more strongly worded rules without understanding the conflict can make the instruction set harder to maintain.

Keep test execution reports honest. A proposed command, a cache hit tied to known inputs and a newly executed check are different evidence. Ask which was observed and keep its source or log. A tiny label-formatting fixture cannot certify repository coverage or a successful vendor integration. When the application cannot access a file, dependency or account, preserve that limitation rather than converting it into a reassuring summary that all checks were completed.

Adapt one applicable rule at a time in a disposable project, then review the actual diff and result before expanding its scope. Use fictional identifiers and source while investigating setup, and inspect the provider processing before introducing private work. SimplyUtils supplies readable examples and documented limits; it does not activate rules inside your editor. Report a misleading filename, missing dependency or failed scope example with the listing URL and a redacted reproduction, preserving third-party attribution and the template terms separately.

• Claude Project Instruction Guide - AI-generated CLAUDE.md drafting guide with a small manifest exercise. No fixed stack, migration permission or verified Claude integration is supplied.
• Cursor Next.js Rule Guide - AI-generated scoped Cursor rule example with current .mdc structure and an App Router review exercise. It supplies no executable server action or tested integration.
• Cascade Workspace Rule Guide - AI-generated scoped Cascade rule example with synthetic file matching. Current and legacy locations depend on the installed Windsurf or Devin version.
• Copilot Repository Instruction Guide - AI-generated repository instruction example with a synthetic README exercise and explicit feature-support limits. No universal completion behavior is promised. SimplyUtils example, not official GitHub documentation.
• AGENTS.md Repository Guide - AI-generated repository guidance with a synthetic command-discovery exercise. Plain Markdown, not an official specification or universal agent integration.
• Monorepo Agent Instruction Guide - AI-generated package-scope guide with an original two-package task exercise. Task selection and caching require project configuration; no command is run by this page.