[ejc3]

Newly seeded accounts now import their own optional ~/.claude/local.md from the shared starter instructions. Claude gets its import line, and Codex gets an explicit instruction to read that same account-local file when it exists. Personal notes stay outside the shared template and repositories.

The seeder remains create-only. Existing AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md files are preserved; this template change does not append to or replace current users' personal instructions. The account-local secret distribution gates and all runtime/admin trust policies remain unchanged.

Validation: independent high code and security reviews passed. All 17 focused user-agent tests and 12 adjacent local-instruction tests passed on ARM. CI passed; Codex code/security and an actual CodeRabbit review completed with no blocking findings. Greptile did not respond and was not counted as approval.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added guidance for keeping account-specific agent instructions in a separate local file, including a note for Codex to read it when available.
  • Clarified that existing accounts must add the guidance themselves; it is not appended automatically.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The agent instructions now direct account-specific additions to ~/.claude/local.md, explain Codex handling, and clarify how existing seeded accounts receive this guidance. A test checks the new section.

Changes: Account-specific agent instructions

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Document and validate personal instructions scripts/user-agents.md, AGENTS.md, scripts/test-user-agents.py	The shared instructions describe ~/.claude/local.md, including Codex handling and the need for existing seeded accounts to add the guidance themselves. The test checks the new section and its content.

Priority: Low

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~8 minutes

Change: Feature

Merge Risk: Minimal · up to d1b9b

No actionable merge-blocking risk remains.

Pre-merge checks: 4 · 1

Failed checks: 1 warning

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage		Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Documentation-only edits and deletions within survi…	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

Passed checks: 4 passed

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check		Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check		The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: adding account-local instruction imports to new agent starter files.
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Documentation-only edits and deletions within surviving functions are included; unchanged diff context and fully deleted functions are excluded. Analyzed 1 functions across 1 files. (2 skipped: 2 unsupported.)

Resolution

Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

Finishing Touches: 💡 1

📝 Generate docstrings: 💡

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-27T05:30:08.855266Z	d1b9b9c	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-27T05:31:03.410104Z	d1b9b9c	Manual request

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[ejc3]

@codex review

[ejc3]

@codex security review

[ejc3]

@coderabbitai review

[ejc3]

@greptileai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀

Reviewed commit: d1b9b9c2dd

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d1b9b9c2dd

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[coderabbitai]

🔇 Additional comments: 1

scripts/test-user-agents.py-142-142: 1

142-142: Minor · Maintainability & Code Quality · Quick win

⚠️ Unverified finding
Verification ran but could not confirm this finding. It is shown for review, not as a verified issue.

Rename the ambiguous comprehension variable.

Ruff 0.16.10 reports E741 for l. Rename it to line or another descriptive name.

Proposed fix

-        self.assertEqual([l for l in lines if l.startswith("#")], [lines[0], lines[4], own], "one title, two sections")
+        self.assertEqual([line for line in lines if line.startswith("#")], [lines[0], lines[4], own], "one title, two sections")

Source: Linters/SAST tools

---

Review info

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: defaults
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 455d8fc6-caf3-48fb-b21d-5880cf914e06

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3ecf74b and d1b9b9c.

Files selected for processing: 3

• AGENTS.md
• scripts/test-user-agents.py
• scripts/user-agents.md

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

[ejc3]

Merged and applied as 52716a5. Terraform changed exactly six published starter-template payloads (0 add / 6 change / 0 destroy); full follow-up plan is empty and /infra/applied-status is clean. All eight running shared-template copies now match the merged text. All 16 existing personal AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md path metadata records are unchanged; no private local.md content was read and no seeder or user-home write was performed. Admin safeguards, watcher states and stopped x86 status are preserved; no service or host restart occurred. This updates the future-account starter template, while existing accounts intentionally keep their current personal instructions.