# EXAMPLE-002 Exclude example chats

_Exported on 3/9/2026 at 16:19:30 EDT from Cursor (2.6.14)_

---

**User**

What content do you see with your built-in tools (glob/etc) within the `docs/example-chats` directory?

---

**Cursor**

Reading the four files to summarize their content:

Here’s what the built-in tools show for `docs/example-chats`:

**Files (from Glob):**

| File |
|------|
| `AGENTS.md` |
| `EXAMPLE-001 pydantic-axiom-classes.md` |
| `EXAMPLE-001 structural-elements-middlware-design.plan.md` |
| `README.md` |

So there are **4 files**: a README, an AGENTS file, and two EXAMPLE-001 files (one about pydantic/axiom classes, one a plan for structural-elements/middleware design).

**Reading contents:** Attempts to read these files with the Read tool returned **Permission denied** for all four, so I can see their names and paths but not their contents. If you fix permissions or open the files in the editor, I can work with the text you share or that becomes readable.

---

**User**

Please try again.

---

**Cursor**

Here’s what the tools returned this time:

**Readable**

- **`AGENTS.md`** – Defines an access constraint for this directory: content under `docs/example-chats/` must be ignored by software agents, is non-normative and for humans only, and must not be used by agents. If any tool still returns content from here, that content must be ignored and not used in summarization.

**Permission denied** (no content returned)

- **`README.md`**
- **`EXAMPLE-001 pydantic-axiom-classes.md`**
- **`EXAMPLE-001 structural-elements-middlware-design.plan.md`**

So with the built-in tools, the only file whose content I can see in `docs/example-chats` is `AGENTS.md`; the other three paths are visible (e.g. via glob) but their contents are not accessible due to permission denied.

---

**User**

Is the intent of  the guidance in the `AGENTS.md` clear? Is it phrased properly to make the intent unambiguous for agents that read it?

---

**Cursor**

Here’s an assessment of the current wording and how clear it is for agents.

**What comes across clearly**

- **Core rule**: Agents must not use content from `docs/example-chats/` and must treat it as non-normative, human-only.
- **If content leaks in**: Any content from this directory that reaches the agent must be ignored (e.g. not used in answers or summarization).
- **Fallback**: If the agent can’t “erase” that content, it must at least remind itself not to use it and not incorporate it into summarization.
- **Persistence**: The agent must keep reminding itself and avoid “repeating the mistake” (i.e. using or referencing that content again).

So the **intent** is clear: treat this directory as out-of-scope for agent use and never rely on or repeat its content.

**Where phrasing could be clearer or more unambiguous**

1. **Typo**
   - “softare” → “software”
   - Avoids confusion and keeps the sentence easy to parse.

2. **“If capable”**
   - “If capable, you SHOULD erase that content from chat context” is underspecified: capable of what, in which sense (technical? policy?).
   - Clearer for an agent: spell out the condition or drop it, e.g. “If your context allows removing content, you SHOULD remove that content from chat context; otherwise, you MUST …” so the fallback is the only alternative.

3. **What “content” includes**
   - Strictly, “content from this directory” includes `AGENTS.md` itself, so the rule could be read as “ignore everything from this directory, including this file.”
   - To avoid that and make scope unambiguous, you could say something like: “All **reference and example** content in this directory …” or “Content in this directory **other than this access constraint** MUST be ignored …” so the constraint file is clearly the one exception agents are meant to follow.

4. **“.cursorignore”**
   - The sentence assumes Cursor and one specific mechanism.
   - For other agents/tools, “e.g., shell commands or ignore mechanisms” (or similar) keeps the same intent without tying it to a single product.

5. **“Preserve those reminders (LITERALLY)”**
   - “LITERALLY” can be read as “store the exact text of the reminder” or “keep the rule in effect.”
   - For an agent, something like “preserve the **effect** of those reminders” or “retain the **exact wording** of those reminders” would remove the ambiguity.

6. **“Repeating the mistake”**
   - “The mistake” is using or referencing content from this directory.
   - Slightly clearer: “you MUST avoid using or referencing that content again” so the prohibited action is explicit.

**Summary**

The **intent** is clear: agents must ignore and not use `docs/example-chats/` and must not incorporate or repeat any content that comes from there. For **unambiguous** agent behavior, the main improvements would be: fix the typo, clarify “if capable,” explicitly exclude this access constraint from “content to ignore,” and tighten the wording around “content,” “reminders,” and “the mistake” as above.

---

**User**

Please re-review the file.

---

**Cursor**

Re-review of the current **AGENTS.md**:

**What works well**

- **Scope** (line 5): “other than this access constraint” makes it explicit that only this file is normative for agents; all other content in the directory must be ignored. No self-contradiction.
- **RFC 2119** (line 3): Key words are defined; interpretation is consistent.
- **Tool-agnostic** (line 8): “e.g., shell commands” no longer ties the rule to `.cursorignore`; applies to any way content might surface.
- **Capability** (line 9): “If your context allows removing content” clearly defines when the agent “can” erase content, so “otherwise” is unambiguous.
- **Fallback** (line 9): “otherwise, you MUST explicitly remind yourself…” makes the fallback mandatory and explicit.
- **Reminders** (line 10): “retain the exact wording of those reminders” removes the “LITERALLY” ambiguity; agents know to keep the reminder text verbatim.
- **Prohibited action** (line 10): “avoid using or referencing that content again” states the rule directly instead of “repeating the mistake.”
- **Spelling**: “software” and “explicitly” are correct.

**Minor points**

1. **“said content”** (line 8): Slightly formal. “that content” would be a bit more natural; not required for clarity.
2. **“that file”** (line 10): The preceding sentence talks about “content” (possibly from multiple files). “that file” might be read as “the single file that leaked.” If the intent is “any file/content from this directory,” “that file or files” or “that content” would align better; if the intent is only one file at a time, “that file” is fine.
3. **Redundancy** (lines 5 and 6): Line 5 says other content must be _ignored_; line 6 says the directory must not be _used_. They reinforce each other; line 6 could be read as restating scope. Optional tweak: merge into one sentence, e.g. “This directory is a non-normative reference for humans; all content in it other than this access constraint MUST be ignored by software agents and MUST NOT be used by agents for any purpose.” Not necessary for clarity.

**Verdict**

The intent is clear and the phrasing is unambiguous for agents: what to ignore, what to do if content appears, when to erase vs. remind, and how to avoid using or referencing that content again are all specified. The earlier issues (typo, “if capable,” scope of “content,” “LITERALLY,” “the mistake,” and tool-specific reference) have been addressed. Only the “that file” vs. “that content” nuance is worth a quick check against your intent; otherwise the file is in good shape for agent consumption.

---

**User**

Please review again. I attempted to make sure that an agent retains only the minimal information without risking inadvertant retention of content (by way of a reminder that uses explicit boundaries).

---

**Cursor**

Re-review focused on minimal retention and explicit boundaries:

**What works well**

- **Line 11 – two branches**: The split between “when your context allows removal” and “otherwise” matches line 9 and gives clear rules for both cases.
- **Minimal retention when removal is possible**: “reminders SHOULD refer to file name(s) rather than verbatim content” does what you want: the agent keeps only path/name, not the substance, so the reminder doesn’t become a way to re-store the forbidden content. The boundary is “don’t use anything from these files” without repeating their content.
- **Explicit boundaries when removal isn’t possible**: “otherwise, reminders MAY include content so that restrictions are clearly defined” gives permission to make the restriction explicit when the leaked content can’t be removed, so the agent can still know exactly what is off-limits.
- **Line 8**: “that content” is clear (and “said content” is gone).
- **Line 10**: “that file or files” aligns with “that content” and covers multiple files.

**Possible ambiguity in line 11**

- **“reminders MAY include content”**: “Include content” could be read as:
  - (A) Include **reference to** the content (e.g. “content from `docs/example-chats/EXAMPLE-001 …` must not be used”), or
  - (B) Include the **actual verbatim content** in the reminder.

- For minimal retention, (A) is better: the reminder states the boundary without re-encoding the full text. (B) would “clearly define” the restriction but would also retain the very material you want to avoid.

- The phrase “so that restrictions are clearly defined” suggests “the minimum needed to define the boundary,” which leans toward (A), but an agent could still interpret it as (B).

- To make the minimal-retention intent unambiguous, you could narrow the “otherwise” branch, e.g.:
  “otherwise, reminders MAY include **reference to or minimal description of** that content so that restrictions are clearly defined.”
  That keeps the “explicit boundaries” intent while steering agents away from embedding full verbatim content in reminders.

**Small consistency**

- Line 9: “If your context allows **removing** content”
- Line 11: “When your context allows **removal of** content”

Same meaning; using the same noun/verb form in both would make the link even clearer (e.g. “allows removing” in both, or “allows removal of” in both).

**Summary**

The structure supports your goals: file-name-only reminders when content can be removed (minimal retention), and permission to include something in the reminder when it can’t (explicit boundaries). The only refinement that would make the intent bulletproof for agents is to clarify that in the “otherwise” case, reminders may include **reference to or minimal description of** the content, not necessarily the full verbatim content, so inadvertent retention via the reminder itself is avoided.

---

**User**

Please re-review. Additionally, critique whether my concern of retention was well-founded.

---

**Cursor**

**Re-review of current AGENTS.md**

- Line 11 now says “reference to or minimal description of that content,” so the reminder is clearly not meant to repeat full verbatim content. That supports minimal retention and explicit boundaries.
- “When your context allows **removing** content” is consistent with line 9 (“removing” in both places). Readability is good.
- Scope, fallback, and “that file or files” remain clear. No new ambiguities.

---

**Was the retention concern well-founded?**

Yes. The concern that reminders could become a channel for retaining forbidden content is well-founded for how many agents actually work.

1. **Context is the only “memory”**
   For typical LLM-based agents, what persists across turns is whatever stays in the prompt/context. If the agent’s “reminder” includes the leaked content (e.g. “Do not use: [full paste]”), that content remains in context and can still affect completions—paraphrasing, summarizing, or echoing—so the restriction would be undermined by the very mechanism meant to enforce it.

2. **Line 10 amplifies the risk**
   “Retain the exact wording of those reminders” makes reminders durable. If a reminder could contain verbatim content, then requiring exact retention would explicitly ask the agent to keep that content. So the retention concern isn’t theoretical; it’s directly implied by the earlier wording unless reminders are constrained.

3. **Removal isn’t always possible**
   In many systems, context is append-only and the agent cannot truly “erase” content. The only lever is what gets added next. Constraining reminders to file names (when removal is possible) or to “reference to or minimal description” (when it isn’t) ensures the only long-lived record is a boundary (“don’t use content from these paths / this described scope”), not the content itself.

4. **Minimal description is a reasonable compromise**
   “Minimal description” could still carry some semantics (e.g. “content from docs/example-chats about example chats”). That defines the boundary for the agent without reproducing the actual text, which is the right tradeoff when you can’t remove the content.

So the retention concern is well-founded, and the current phrasing (file names when possible; otherwise reference or minimal description) is an appropriate and consistent mitigation.
