I think a few folks are already using CLAUDE.md files in their repo and they're just not committing them.
Anyone want to share what's already done? I'm happy to help share what I know about the agentic side of things, but since I don't do much in the way of patching C* it would be a lot of guessing. If I'm wrong and nobody shares one, I'll take a stab at it. On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 3:08 PM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> wrote: > Great feedback everybody! Really appreciate it! > > Reading what Jon posted ... Jon, I think you are the most experienced > in this based on what you wrote. Would you mind doing some POC here > for Cassandra repo? For the trunk it is enough ... Something we might > build further on. I think we need to build the foundations of that and > put some structure into it and all things considered I think you are > best for the job here. > > If the basics are there we can play with it more before merging, this > is not something which needs to be done "tomorrow", we can collaborate > on something together for some time and add things into it as patches > come. I think it takes some time to "tune" it. > > Everybody else feel free to help! My experience in this space is > limited, I think there are people who are using it more often than me > for sure. > > Regards > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 12:59 AM Joel Shepherd <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > There's been some momentum building for AGENTS.md files, both on the > > project and on the agent side: > > > > https://agents.md/ > > > > Same idea and benefits, but it might help to align folks on a "standard" > > that will work well across agents. > > > > I also think that more and better code documentation can be very > > beneficial when using agents to help with working out implementation > > details. I spent a bunch of time in January writing an introduction to > > Apache Ratis (Raft as a library: > > > https://github.com/apache/ratis/blob/master/ratis-docs/src/site/markdown/index.md > ). > > The code itself is pretty well-documented but it was hard for me to > > build a mental model of how to integrate with. AI was very effective in > > taking the granular in-code documentation and synthesizing an overview > > from it. Going the other way, the in-code documentation has made it > > possible for me to deep dive the Ratis code to root cause bugs, etc. > > Agents can get a lot out of good class- and method-level documentation. > > > > -- Joel. > > > > On 2/16/2026 8:03 PM, Bernardo Botella wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up Stefan!! > > > > > > A really interesting topic indeed. > > > > > > > > > I’ve also heard ideas around even having Claude.md type of files that > help LLMs understand the code base without having to do a full scan every > time. > > > > > > So, all and all, putting together something that we as a community > think that describe good practices + repository information not only for > the main Cassandra repository, but also for its subprojects, will > definitely help contributors adhere to standards and us reviewers to ensure > that some steps at least will have been considered. > > > > > > Things like: > > > - Repository structure. What every folder is > > > - Tests suits and how they work and run > > > - Git commits standards > > > - Specific project lint rules (like braces in new lines!) > > > - Preferred wording style for patches/documentation > > > > > > Committed to the projects, and accesible to LLMs, sound like really > useful context for those type of contributions (that are going to keep > happening regardless). > > > > > > So curious to read what others think. > > > Bernardo > > > > > > PD. Totally agree that this should change nothing of the quality bar > for code reviews and merged code > > > > > >> On Feb 16, 2026, at 6:27 PM, Štefan Miklošovič < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hey, > > >> > > >> This happened recently in kernel space. (1), (2). > > >> > > >> What that is doing, as I understand it, is that you can point LLM to > > >> these resources and then it would be more capable when reviewing > > >> patches or even writing them. It is kind of a guide / context provided > > >> to AI prompt. > > >> > > >> I can imagine we would just compile something similar, merge it to the > > >> repo, then if somebody is prompting it then they would have an easier > > >> job etc etc, less error prone ... adhered to code style etc ... > > >> > > >> This might look like a controversial topic but I think we need to > > >> discuss this. The usage of AI is just more and more frequent. From > > >> Cassandra's perspective there is just this (3) but I do not think we > > >> reached any conclusions there (please correct me if I am wrong where > > >> we are at with AI generated patches). > > >> > > >> This is becoming an elephant in the room, I am noticing that some > > >> patches for Cassandra were prompted by AI completely. I think it would > > >> be way better if we make it easy for everybody contributing like that. > > >> > > >> This does not mean that we, as committers, would believe what AI > > >> generated blindlessly. Not at all. It would still need to go over the > > >> formal review as anything else. But acting like this is not happening > > >> and people are just not going to use AI when trying to contribute is > > >> not right. We should embrace it in some form ... > > >> > > >> 1) https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts > > >> 2) > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > > >> 3) https://lists.apache.org/thread/j90jn83oz9gy88g08yzv3rgyy0vdqrv7 >
