- All playbooks
- Give agents actionable lint feedback
Give agents actionable lint feedback
Expose the project’s lint rules and actionable failure messages to agents so they can correct violations during the development loop.
How companies used this technique
Read what each company changed and follow the original sources.
Write lint errors that tell the agent how to fix them
OpenAI's agent-first team enforces the direction of layer dependencies with custom linters and structural tests, and adds taste invariants such as structured logging, naming conventions for schemas and types, file size limits and platform-specific reliability requirements. Each custom lint writes its error message to carry remediation instructions, so the failure an agent reads also tells it the repair.
we statically enforce structured logging, naming conventions for schemas and types, file size limits, and platform-specific reliability requirements with custom lints Source
- Use it when
- An agent keeps meeting the same lint or structural-test error in CI, and the message names the rule without the repair.
- Before applying it
- The message is part of the rule, so update it in the same change as the rule and keep the check itself deterministic.
Give agents the same lint feedback as developers
Translated to GitHub Actions
- What Spotify built
- Spotify's Soundcheck assesses components against its golden state, and the lint system corrects Claude when it uses a ruled-out pattern.
- Your GitHub Actions version
- Give agents the same lint feedback developers get, so a ruled-out pattern fails the check and the agent corrects itself.
Spotify's golden state defines the recommended technologies and practices for each type of component, and Soundcheck lets teams assess their components against it. Combined with static analysis and linting, these standards become guardrails. When Claude uses a pattern the standards rule out for Spotify's infrastructure, it gets immediate feedback from the lint system and corrects itself. Spotify's Fleet Management has merged more than 2.5 million automated maintenance pull requests, most of them auto-merged. As context, Spotify reports a 76% increase in pull request frequency across its overall AI adoption, with the vast majority of pull requests authored by a developer working alongside an AI agent.
- Use it when
- Agents and developers open more pull requests than reviewers can read, and the repository's conventions are written in documents that no check enforces.
- Before applying it
- Rules need an owner who keeps them current. Start with the patterns reviewers correct most often.
- GitHub Actions adaptation
- Compare the source system with your own workflow before applying this translation.
Company Playbooks
- Read Anthropic’s playbookRun only affected tests
- Read DoorDash’s playbookRun build and test in parallel, sharded across CI agents
- Read Linear’s playbookBenchmark the same job on faster hardware
- Read Mastra’s playbookStarSling runners for the slowest test workflow
- Read OpenAI’s playbookRank CI fixes by the minutes they save
- Read Ramp’s playbookMove a CPU-bound test suite to a faster CPU
- Read Shopify’s playbookLet an agent iterate against one CI metric
- Read Spotify’s playbookBuild arm64 on native arm64 runners
- Read Stripe’s playbookRun only the tests a change can reach
- Read Uber’s playbookBuild the merge-queue speculations most likely to be needed