Lore: Repurposing Git Commit Messages as a Structured Knowledge Protocol for AI Coding Agents

Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents achieve impressive results on controlled benchmarks yet routinely produce pull requests that real maintainers reject. The root cause is not functional incorrectness but a lack of organicity: generated code ignores project-specific conventions, duplicates functionality already provided by internal APIs, and violates implicit architectural constraints accumulated over years of development. Simply exposing an agent to the latest repository snapshot is not enough: the snapshot reveals the final state of the codebase, but not the repository-specific change patterns by which that state was reached. We introduce Learning to Commit, a framework that closes this gap through Online Repository Memory. Given a repository with a strict chronological split, the agent performs supervised contrastive reflection on earlier commits: it blindly attempts to resolve each historical issue, compares its prediction against the oracle diff, and distils the gap into a continuously growing set of skills-reusable patterns capturing coding style, internal API usage, and architectural invariants. When a new PR description arrives, the agent conditions its generation on these accumulated skills, producing changes grounded in the project's own evolution rather than generic pretraining priors. Evaluation is conducted on genuinely future, merged pull requests that could not have been seen during the skill-building phase, and spans multiple dimensions including functional correctness, code-style consistency, internal API reuse rate, and modified-region plausibility. Experiments on an expert-maintained repository with rich commit history show that Online Repository Memory effectively improves organicity scores on held-out future tasks.

Software repositories accumulate large amounts of unstructured knowledge in commit messages, pull-request discussions, and issue threads, but developers and AI coding assistants rarely reuse this history effectively. Recent work on typed-memory architectures for LLM agents (MemGPT, generative agents, and the PlugMem module of Yang et al.) argues that agent memory should be distilled, typed knowledge rather than raw interaction text. We adapt that stance to a software repository's own git history under a constrained regime: deterministic, dependency-free, local-only, no embeddings. We present CommitDistill, an open-source Python prototype that mines a local git history into typed knowledge units (Facts, Skills, Patterns) using deterministic regex and surfaces them through a TF-IDF retriever with a calibrated silence threshold (theta = 2.5) that abstains on out-of-distribution queries. The artefact is a trust-instrumented memory substrate: deterministic, no external service, inspectable plain-JSON store, tunable abstention. A case study on five public repositories spanning Python, JavaScript, C, and Java (25,000 commits, 1,167 extracted units) reports useful-precision 0.525 at Cohen's kappa = 0.633 on 40 dual-annotated Python units. The decisive finding is budget-constrained retrieval: at a 256-character per-query budget, CommitDistill reaches 0.750 hit-rate on a 12-query benchmark against BM25's 0.333 and git log --grep's 0.083. On a four-arm paired LLM-as-judge evaluation (n=200 time-travel bug-fixes, two judges) covering control, CommitDistill, a body-budget-matched CD-Hybrid, and BM25, no condition produces a statistically detectable lift over control on the headline mean and CD-Hybrid is indistinguishable from BM25 head-to-head. Extraction over 10,000 commits completes in under 4 seconds on a laptop. Source, annotations, baselines, and a reproducibility script accompany this paper.

Coding agents can be guided with instruction files in a repository. We examine this emerging practice through a census of 22,854 popular, active GitHub repositories in thirteen languages, treating each repository's root 'AGENTS$.$md' and 'CLAUDE$.$md' as one instruction set. Agent instructions appear in 26.3% of repositories and 59.6% of the most-starred; where both files exist, 'CLAUDE$.$md' usually points to 'AGENTS$.$md'. We analyse 341,852 statements using model-assisted annotation and human review. The annotations reveal a practical mix of project knowledge and rules about code, building and workflow. Collaboration rules name concrete requirements, from test plans to commit formats, yet 74.0% of directives give no reason. Projects disagree on AI attribution: commit-message rules more often prohibit it than require it, while pull-request rules more often require disclosure. A third of instruction sets have a generator-associated signature, a tool-inserted block, shared text or an AI-marked creation commit; four in five are edited after creation. Prespecified tests associate repository popularity with rules on pull requests and AI contributions. Exploratory analyses link activity to process-oriented content and show that LLM and agent projects are over-represented among adopters. The models agree much more closely with each other than with the human reviewer's topic assignments, a caution for automated annotation. We release the annotations, taxonomies and pointers to the analysed file versions.