Cross-sectional content analysis reveals semantic divergence in instruction files across repositories, suggesting measurement implications.
Repositories can contain several persistent instruction files under different path conventions. Their relationships have not been measured with a denominator that first separates reference adapters from separate non-delegating, closure-expanded analysis bodies. This preregistered cross-sectional content analysis used version 4 of a public coding-agent configuration dataset. The first 200 of 455 ordered non-pilot candidates were reference-screened; the first 150 eligible repositories supplied one hash-selected pair each. Pair selection was semantic-outcome-independent conditional on content-derived reference eligibility. Separately tasked GPT-5/Codex agents classified explicit propositions across five dimensions; a random 38-pair subset was blindly recoded within the same AI-agent environment, and no independent human recoding was performed. Actionable semantic divergence occurred in 19/150 selected pairs (12.7%, Wilson 95% CI 8.3%–18.9%), direct contradiction in 6/150 (4.0%, 1.8%–8.5%), and the analytically separate unilateral mandatory-workflow asymmetry in 35/150 (23.3%, 17.3%–30.7%). A post hoc 1,000-seed selection diagnostic produced 17–20 positives per 150 pairs. The all-pairs sensitivity within the same repositories produced 23/199 actionable pairs (11.6%, repository-cluster bootstrap 95% CI 6.8%–16.8%). Most selected pairs were Complementary. The study contributes three linked outputs: a reference-aware measurement design, a bounded selected-pair baseline, and an auditable derived-evidence package. It does not establish temporal drift, human intercoder reliability, or downstream effects on agents or software. Preregistration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3U2B9 The English manuscript is the authoritative version. Article text, schemas, and derived annotations are licensed CC BY 4.0; original code is MIT-licensed; third-party materials retain their original licenses. Raw and extracted third-party repository files are not redistributed. Correction and takedown contact: batteryofsprunk@gmail.com
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Artem Svinoboev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: