{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.",
    "change": "Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.",
    "baseline": "The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2610.30571",
  "title": "Stale Instruction Files Override the Code in Coding Agents: A One-Sentence Fix",
  "summary": "The technique replaces the default behavior in which a project instruction file overrides conflicting existing code by adding one user-level instruction sentence that gives the existing code precedence. It costs one additional sentence in the user-level instruction file, with no reported memory, latency, or infrastructure cost, though the paper does not assess effects on tasks where following the instruction file would be correct. It can fail if the sentence is omitted, overridden by higher-priority instructions, or if agents or models change how they rank instruction sources.",
  "rationale": "This is immediately adoptable with constrained infrastructure because it is a prompt-level change shown to substantially improve code-consistent behavior in coding-agent runs.",
  "technique": "Instruction-file sentence prioritizing existing code over stale conventions",
  "family": "agentes_de_codigo",
  "recommendation": "adotar",
  "published": "2026-10-22",
  "as_of": "2026-10-24",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30571",
  "independent_implementations": 1,
  "total_implementations": 2,
  "stars": 7,
  "citations": null,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The technique replaces the default behavior in which a project instruction file overrides conflicting existing code by adding one user-level instruction sentence that gives the existing code precedence. It costs one additional sentence in the user-level instruction file, with no reported memory, latency, or infrastructure cost, though the paper does not assess effects on tasks where following the instruction file would be correct. It can fail if the sentence is omitted, overridden by higher-priority instructions, or if agents or models change how they rank instruction sources.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30571",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-02",
      "statement": "The sentence raised the share of choices that follow the code from 4.2% to 91.4%, stopped the rewrites, and raised the test pass rate from 89.4% to 100%.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30571",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}