The original post was about adding AI tooling, prompt, command, or skill. The thread is shifted to AI memory files.
I do not have an objection to any of these, but want to make sure that we are still on the original topic. IMO, AI tooling has a clear scope / definition and is easier to reach consensus on. Meanwhile, AI memory files are vague to define clearly. Different developers on different domains could have quite different preferences. - Yifan On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 3:37 PM Dmitry Konstantinov <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not have my one but here there are few examples from oher Apache > projects: > https://github.com/apache/camel/blob/main/AGENTS.md > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/CLAUDE.md > > https://github.com/apache/superset/blob/master/superset/mcp_service/CLAUDE.md > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 23:22, Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Dmitry Konstantinov >
