[joelmccoy]

Description

Adds some AI guidance from this repo. Some of this was ported from the uds-cli-next repo and cleaned up.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (security config, docs update, etc)

Checklist before merging

• Test, docs, adr added or updated as needed
• Contributor Guide Steps followed

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds an agent-oriented contributor guide and two reusable review “skills” (Go development + testing) to standardize how changes are made and validated across the UDS CLI codebase (including Legacy vs Next boundaries).

Changes:

• Adds AGENTS.md with repository-wide guidance on architecture boundaries, error ownership, ADR usage, and tooling safety.
• Introduces .agents/skills/go-development and .agents/skills/testing with detailed reference docs for Go standards and test-layer selection.
• Adds .greptile/config.json to ignore vendor/** during Greptile analysis.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
AGENTS.md	New repo-level agent guide covering module invariants, Legacy/Next separation, errors, ADRs, and safety/tooling expectations.
.greptile/config.json	Configures Greptile to ignore vendored dependencies.
.agents/skills/testing/SKILL.md	Defines the “testing” skill entry point and points to the testing reference.
.agents/skills/testing/references/TESTING.md	Adds detailed testing strategy, layers, commands, and conventions (assertions, IOStreams, error testing).
.agents/skills/go-development/SKILL.md	Defines the “go-development” skill entry point and points to Go standards reference.
.agents/skills/go-development/references/GO_CODE_STANDARDS.md	Adds comprehensive Go coding guidelines for the repo, including architecture, errors, context, testing, and dependency practices.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

Adds repository-specific guidance for AI coding agents and configures Greptile to ignore vendored files.

• Documents Go coding, architecture, error-handling, and dependency standards.
• Documents the repository’s unit, integration, cluster, smoke, and Legacy testing workflows.
• Adds a top-level agent guide covering Legacy/Next boundaries, ADRs, documentation expectations, and tooling safety.
• Adds Greptile configuration for excluding vendor/** from reviews.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The documentation and review-configuration changes appear safe to merge.

The documented testing commands align with existing task definitions, the Greptile ignore pattern uses the accepted configuration shape, and no concrete behavioral, security, or repository-rule failure remains.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
AGENTS.md	Adds a concise repository-wide agent guide covering architecture boundaries, errors, ADRs, documentation, and safe tooling.
.agents/skills/go-development/references/GO_CODE_STANDARDS.md	Adds comprehensive Go development standards aligned with the repository’s Legacy/Next architecture.
.agents/skills/testing/references/TESTING.md	Adds testing-layer guidance whose task names, paths, tags, and build prerequisites agree with repository task definitions.
.greptile/config.json	Adds a valid single-pattern Greptile exclusion for the vendor directory.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "chore(docs): add ai guidance" | Re-trigger Greptile}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 139e166df9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[bradclawsie]

some minor opinioneering nits but overall I think this is great! Looks like Chance has some more pointed comments so I will hold off approving for now but generally looks great!

[bradclawsie]

I feel like overall this is great and I think we should just start working with this. The litmus test isn't passing PR review, its getting positive results over time from AI. We'll just have to put it to work to determine that.

[chance-coleman]

Happy with this as is. as with most AI docs and stuff it will evolve and we can fine tune anything we don't like as we go. 🚀