u/Middle_Key8737

Hi people! Because the Cursor's agent and skill layout is slightly different, it took me a while to figure out a way to make my agentic workflow compatible with Cursor.

Would like to know if anyone here is interested in giving it a run and let me know if it works?

I have tested it with Codex,Claude, Copilot, OpenCode etc. and can confirm it is working with those platforms. I have read cursor documentation and added its compatibility layer.

About the tool:

Truthmark is a Git-native documentation curation tool for AI-assisted software development. It installs repository-level instructions and mappings that tell coding agents when documentation should be created, updated, validated, or reorganised as code changes.

Rather than acting as a one-off documentation generator, it maintains small, human-owned, evidence-backed “truth docs” alongside the relevant code, producing ordinary Git diffs that reviewers can inspect with each change.

Cheers!

One problem I kept running into with Claude Code and Codex was that the code changed quickly, but the docs didn’t.

I built an open-source tool called Truthmark to make that harder to ignore. You install it in a repo, run the setup command, and it adds instructions for your coding agent to check whether its code changes also require documentation and test updates.

The idea is simple: code, tests and docs should change in the same PR instead of someone fixing the docs weeks later.

I’ve been using it by setting it up once in the repo, then coding normally with my agent. There’s also a command for documenting existing behaviour when a project already has a lot of undocumented code.

Curious how other people here handle this. Do you rely on prompts, repo rules, manual review, or just accept that the docs will drift?

Watching cities overseas embrace affordable EVs, clean solar grids, and fully self-driving robotaxis makes Australia look so far behind. We don't have a supply problem—we have a policy and culture problem. We're dragging our feet on charging infrastructure, over-regulating autonomous tech, and sticking to old petrol-head habits while the rest of the world shifts gears.

Australia needs policies that actively back clean transport, greenlight self-driving taxi technology, build more solar farms to power ev, and shifting our culture to embrace electric energy instead of fighting it.

Just had discussions with a few overseas friends. Found a few large gaps between Australian election and other democratic countries. In Australia, general members of the public do not have a clear statutory right to attend the count, filming is heavily restricted, and media access to counting centres requires prior AEC permission. Media arriving after 6 p.m. are ordinarily turned away, with counting footage arranged selectively in advance.

This is noticeably less open than several Western democracies:

- In Germany, any person may attend and observe polling and counting without registration or identification, including postal-ballot counting. Reference: https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/info/presse/mitteilungen/bundestagswahl-2025/18\_25\_ordnungsgemaesse-durchfuehrung.html

- In Sweden, both preliminary and final counting are expressly public, and any member of the public may observe. Accredited organisations can also observe the entire election period. Reference: https://val.se/english/the-swedish-electoral-system/preliminary-and-final-election-results

- In the United Kingdom, accredited independent observers must be admitted to verification and counting; officials may limit numbers but cannot exclude all observers. Medias are allowed to film the entire vote counting process : https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/uk-parliament-election-2024-guidance-count-procedures-candidates-election-agents-counting-agents/4

Moreover, most Western democracies permit OSCE/ODIHR election observation so their vote counting is cross scrutinised by international observers. It is not a thing in Aus at all.

Ref: https://www.osce.org/countries

However, Australia appears to have high public confidence in the election process despite comparatively limited public observation. Would that suggest limited access to observation creates higher public confidence in the process?

Hey everyone. I’ve been coding a lot with AI lately, and while the speed is incredible, it introduced a massive headache into my workflow: documentation drift.

Because agents like Claude Code and CodeX write and refactor code so fast, my architecture docs, API specs, and behavior explanations were instantly falling behind. I was getting fast code, but the actual "story" of the repository was completely rotting. Code reviewers were left staring at raw diffs with no updated documentation to explain the why.

I recently started building an open-source tool called Truthmark, and it directly solves this exact failure mode. I wanted to share how I use it in case your team is struggling with the same thing.

Truthmark isn't a documentation generator that you run once and forget about. Instead, it acts as a Git-native workflow layer that you install directly into your repo to enforce a contract with your AI agents. It essentially tells your AI: "If you change functional code, you cannot hand it back until you also test it and update the mapped documentation."

The best part is there's no vendor lock-in or hidden databases. Everything lives entirely in your repository as md files, and it works with whatever you're already using—Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, etc.

The day-to-day workflow feels incredibly natural. Once you install it via npm and run a quick init in your repo, it sets up the local instructions for your specific AI host. If you have some undocumented code want to get a baseline for, just ask AI to run a /truthmark-document command on a specific component, and it reads the code to generate a bounded, branch-scoped truth doc.

From there, just code as normal. Because Truthmark’s rules are installed directly in the repo, the AI naturally follows the contract. When I ask it to build a feature, it writes the code, runs the tests, and updates the truth docs before handing the branch back to me. When I go to review the work, I get an ordinary Git diff showing both the functional code changes and the corresponding updates to the human-facing docs.

It turns documentation from an afterthought into a mandatory finish-line habit. It has made my AI-assisted PRs infinitely easier to trust and review.

If you are tired of your repository's truth drifting every time you use an AI coding assistant, it is definitely worth looking into.

If you check it out and find it useful, consider giving the repo a star to support the project!

Has anyone else noticed their docs falling apart since they started using AI agents? How is everyone keeping their repo's architecture and behavior docs aligned right now?

Hey everyone,

I just finished porting the architecture of Claude Code Game Studio over to Codex and made it natively runnable with CodeX cli instead of Claude Code. It's also plugged with GPT 5.6 models with optimised model selection to save token use.

If you've tried using AI for game dev, you know standard chats quickly lose context, forget your GDD, and break engine code. Codex Game Studio fixes this by turning your local session into a structured, file-backed studio using plain text files (.toml, .md) tracked directly in Git.

The Highlights:

\- 50 Agents & 90 Skills: Routes your prompt packets through specialized studio roles (Creative Director, Gameplay Programmer, QA) with strict model/reasoning routing.

\- Godot 4, Unity, & UE5 Tracks: Native validation checks to catch AI model drift before it corrupts your scene files or scripts.

\- Pure Git-Reviewable State: Everything lives locally in your project root. No cloud project managers, no black boxes, and zero autonomous overwriting.

It’s completely free and MIT-licensed. If you want a disciplined, repeatable setup for your next solo game or jam, give it a spIn

I’ve been building a small (well..) open-source tool called Truthmark, and I’d like feedback from people who actually use AI agents / vibe coding in real projects.

The problem I’m trying to solve:

When I use AI coding tools, the code can move fast, but the “why” behind changes gets messy. Requirements live in chat. Architecture decisions get repeated. Docs drift. The agent remembers something in one session, then forgets it later. Reviewers can see the code diff, but not always the context that led to it.

Truthmark is my attempt to make that context live inside the repo instead of disappearing into prompt history.

I got this kind of problem when I work with multiple vibe coders (including myself) and everyone making so many changes and nobody knows what has been changed nor no one can be sure about the current behavior of the repository XD

The basic idea:

- create a branch-scoped truth layer in Git

- map parts of the codebase to the docs that own them

- give AI agents explicit routing/workflow boundaries

- keep truth docs updated when code changes

- make the agent’s context reviewable as normal repo files

So instead of:

“Claude/Cursor/Codex made some changes and the context is buried in chat”

it becomes:

“Here is the code diff, and here is the committed repo truth that changed with it.”

It’s not an MCP server, not a memory database, and not a hosted product. It’s more like a lightweight repo practice packaged as a small CLI + agent workflow files.

I’m especially looking for feedback on:

1. Does this solve a real pain for people using AI coding agents?

2. Is “repo truth that travels with the branch” clear, or does that framing sound too abstract?

3. Would you use this in a solo vibe-coded project, or only in team projects?

Totally okay if the answer is “this is unnecessary.” I’m still figuring out whether the idea is actually useful.

Repo:
truthmark: Makes AI agent behavior visible and reviewable, tracking decisions at the branch level so teams can audit what changed, why, and whether repo truth still matches the code.