Skip to content

Add new guidelines to AGENTS.md#47576

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines
Mar 9, 2026
Merged

Add new guidelines to AGENTS.md#47576
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines

Conversation

@AliDatadog
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@AliDatadog AliDatadog commented Mar 9, 2026

What does this PR do?

Adds review guidelines and a maintenance section to AGENTS.md.

Motivation

Analysis of backport bug fixes revealed recurring patterns. These guidelines give AI reviewers (Codex, Claude Code) project-specific context to catch similar issues earlier.

Describe how you validated your changes

Documentation-only change.

Additional Notes

N/A

@AliDatadog AliDatadog requested a review from a team as a code owner March 9, 2026 11:39
@dd-octo-sts dd-octo-sts Bot added internal Identify a non-fork PR team/agent-devx labels Mar 9, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly medium review PR review might take time labels Mar 9, 2026
@AliDatadog AliDatadog force-pushed the ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines branch from a9e6815 to 3a6227a Compare March 9, 2026 12:22
@AliDatadog AliDatadog added qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed labels Mar 9, 2026
@AliDatadog AliDatadog force-pushed the ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines branch 2 times, most recently from 7dcb7b0 to 96454a2 Compare March 9, 2026 12:28
@AliDatadog AliDatadog changed the title Add review guidelines to AGENTS.md Add new guidelines to AGENTS.md Mar 9, 2026
@AliDatadog AliDatadog force-pushed the ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines branch 3 times, most recently from cf985d5 to e114950 Compare March 9, 2026 12:33
Add project-specific review guidelines for AI code reviewers (Codex,
Claude Code), covering: E2E coverage with fakeintake, branch-conditional
CI blind spots, multi-platform divergence, concurrency lifecycle,
graceful degradation, documentation freshness, and PR template adherence.

Also add a maintenance section encouraging organic growth of guidelines.

Derived from analysis of backport bug fixes: #47251, #47185, #47073,
#47509, #47028, #46978, #46979, #47003, #46955, #47256.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@AliDatadog AliDatadog force-pushed the ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines branch from e114950 to b2160c1 Compare March 9, 2026 12:37
@AliDatadog
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

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".

@AliDatadog
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351
Copy link
Copy Markdown

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Mar 9, 2026

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-03-09 12:47:00 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-03-09 12:47:06 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. View in MergeQueue UI.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2026-03-09 13:16:05 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 3h (p90).


2026-03-09 13:50:26 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor f608e6b9:

Results for datadog-agent_7.78.0~devel.git.422.b2160c1.pipeline.101250376-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 0dc7ba9 into main Mar 9, 2026
221 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the ali.benabdallah/add-review-guidelines branch March 9, 2026 13:50
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.78.0 milestone Mar 9, 2026
@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cit-pr-commenter-54b7da Bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 40ed4f2c-ed26-4000-82c1-571a70dd23e3

Baseline: b6f8af8
Comparison: 0dc7ba9
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization -0.29 [-3.33, +2.75] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
docker_containers_memory memory utilization +1.80 [+1.63, +1.97] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative memory utilization +0.53 [+0.39, +0.68] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics memory utilization +0.48 [+0.29, +0.67] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.39 [+0.34, +0.44] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.37 [+0.33, +0.41] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +0.34 [+0.10, +0.57] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
otlp_ingest_logs memory utilization +0.30 [+0.19, +0.40] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.09 [-0.36, +0.55] 1 Logs
ddot_logs memory utilization +0.09 [+0.04, +0.15] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.08 [-0.02, +0.18] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.02, +0.09] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.37, +0.42] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders memory utilization +0.02 [-0.03, +0.08] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.09, +0.09] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.18, +0.17] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.18, +0.17] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.46, +0.41] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.03 [-0.08, +0.03] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -0.05 [-1.60, +1.49] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
otlp_ingest_metrics memory utilization -0.15 [-0.31, +0.01] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter memory utilization -0.19 [-0.42, +0.04] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_delta memory utilization -0.28 [-0.43, -0.13] 1 Logs
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization -0.29 [-3.33, +2.75] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
docker_containers_cpu simple_check_run 10/10 705 ≥ 26
docker_containers_memory memory_usage 10/10 275.18MiB ≤ 370MiB
docker_containers_memory simple_check_run 10/10 727 ≥ 26
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10 0.19GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10 0.23GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10 0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10 0.22GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B
quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 3 = 3 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 173.92MiB ≤ 175MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 3 = 3 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 490.04MiB ≤ 550MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 202.38MiB ≤ 220MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 344.47 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 423.84MiB ≤ 475MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

angel-ddog pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2026
### What does this PR do?

Adds review guidelines and a maintenance section to `AGENTS.md`.

### Motivation

Analysis of backport bug fixes revealed recurring patterns. These guidelines give AI reviewers (Codex, Claude Code) project-specific context to catch similar issues earlier.

### Describe how you validated your changes

Documentation-only change.

### Additional Notes

N/A

Co-authored-by: ali.benabdallah <ali.benabdallah@datadoghq.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed internal Identify a non-fork PR qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-devx

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants