---
title: "Spot copy-paste carryover in agent batch files"
slug: spot-copy-paste-carryover-in-agent-batch-files
excerpt: "Compare particulars in sibling agent files, distinguish shared framing from misplaced details, and request a repair confined to the affected item."
quickAnswer: "Establish what each finished file describes. Compare details that distinguish the batch items, then read a suspicious detail in both the file containing it and the sibling it appears to belong to. Retain framing that applies to both. Request correction of the misplaced detail by naming it, its sibling origin file, and the file needing repair."
keyTakeaways:
  - "A file's subject gives its particulars a home."
  - "Similar phrasing alone does not establish misplaced content."
  - "Read the suspect detail in both sibling files before deciding."
  - "Keep shared framing when it remains true of each item."
publishedDate: 2026-10-25
dateModified: 2026-10-25
author: Bobby Huang
cluster: A
role: post
status: published
faq:
  - q: "Does repeated wording mean a detail was carried over?"
    a: "No. A batch can use shared framing deliberately. Decide whether the repeated wording describes each item's subject or gives one item a particular belonging to another."
  - q: "Why read the sibling file too?"
    a: "The sibling may explain where a suspect detail belongs. Read its surrounding prose as well as the matching phrase before naming it as the origin."
  - q: "What should a correction request name?"
    a: "Identify the affected file, the wrong detail and the sibling file it belongs to. Keep unrelated wording outside the repair."
related:
  - what-is-a-md-file
---

A finished agent batch sits in a folder as separate Markdown files. Subjects differ across the files, yet one paragraph gives its subject a detail belonging to the neighboring item. The paragraph reads smoothly. Its particular has landed in the wrong file.

Read across the finished items with their identities in mind. Repeated wording deserves attention when it carries something that distinguishes one item from another. Shared phrasing can also be intentional, so repetition alone leaves the decision open.

Jane Doe, the Doe items and all quoted prose below are invented. Consider their wording without acting on the rooms they describe. For the filename ending, consult [the .md introduction here](what-is-a-md-file.md).

## Establish which item each file describes

Before comparing sentences, say what each file is about. A matching heading style cannot settle whether the details beneath it belong to that item. Read enough of each sibling to identify its subject and the particulars that distinguish it.

Jane Doe has these invented descriptions of two batch items:

> Doe-east.md describes the Doe East Room. Its benches face a garden, and its entrance has a stone arch. Both Doe rooms have pale walls.

> Doe-west.md describes the Doe West Room. Its benches face a yard, and its entrance has a flat wooden beam with no arch. Both Doe rooms have pale walls. A later paragraph says the Doe West Room has a stone arch above its entrance.

The first file names the Doe East Room, with garden-facing benches and a stone arch at its entrance. The second names the Doe West Room, with yard-facing benches and a flat wooden beam at its entrance, before repeating the pale-wall statement and later assigning a stone arch to that room.

Hold those identities steady while comparing the particulars. A room name establishes which subject the file describes; the bench view and entrance details distinguish the subjects. Reading only the final sentence would leave that surrounding account unseen.

## Compare the details that distinguish the siblings

In the first description, the garden view accompanies the stone arch. Within the second description, the yard view accompanies the flat wooden beam; its later arch sentence conflicts with that entrance description. The suspect carryover is the stone arch assigned to the Doe West Room.

Look for this relationship in your own batch: a detail fits the sibling's subject while conflicting with the subject of the file containing it. The decision rests on that relationship. Two files using the same adjective can still describe two items truthfully.

Keep attention on the particular being compared. Similar openings, paragraph lengths or heading choices do not decide which room has which entrance. Nor does changing a room's name make every detail in its paragraph belong to the newly named room.

These examples remain quoted paragraphs. For another way to enclose literal material, read [about Markdown code blocks](markdown-code-blocks.md).

## Examine the suspect carryover in both files

Return to Doe-east.md's entrance description before deciding what to request in Doe-west.md. The Doe East Room explicitly has the stone arch. The Doe West Room explicitly has the flat wooden beam, then receives the stone arch in a later paragraph. That supports treating the Doe West Room's later arch detail as carried over from the Doe East Room.

Read around each appearance. A phrase might describe a neighboring item deliberately: a paragraph could compare entrances while keeping each room named. Matching words would then be expected. Here, the later sentence assigns the arch directly to the Doe West Room, which is why its placement matters.

If the sibling's prose does not establish where the detail belongs, leave that question open. Ask about the particular whose attachment is uncertain. Do not invent an origin merely because another file sits nearby in the folder.

## Retain framing that applies to both items

The first description says both Doe rooms have pale walls. The second repeats that statement. Its repetition is legitimate shared framing because the words expressly apply to both rooms; they do not move the Doe East Room's entrance detail into the Doe West Room.

Separate those judgments when requesting a repair. A misplaced particular warrants questioning its attachment. It does not make every repeated sentence in the batch suspect, or require different phrasing for an observation shared by the items.

The bench views also remain attached to their stated rooms: garden for the Doe East Room, then yard for the Doe West Room. Nothing in the later arch sentence requests a change to those views. Keeping the repair confined to the misplaced entrance detail preserves the distinctions already present.

## Request the particular correction and leave the rest

Jane Doe writes a bounded request:

> In Doe-west.md, correct the later stone-arch detail carried over from Doe-east.md. It conflicts with Doe-west.md's flat-wooden-beam entrance description. Retain the shared pale-wall wording and leave the bench descriptions unchanged.

Her request names the affected file and the wrong entrance detail, identifies Doe-east.md as its sibling origin, then states the conflict within Doe-west.md. It retains the pale-wall framing before leaving the bench descriptions unchanged. Replacement room prose stays unwritten in this request.

Keep both filenames beside the suspect detail in your request. [Choosing names for Markdown](markdown-file-naming.md) concerns filename choices; here, filenames distinguish the item needing repair from the sibling whose particular migrated.

Finish the request when the misplaced detail and its origin are explicit and the retained wording is clear. A demand to rewrite the entire batch would extend beyond the attachment you examined. The needed decision is which item the detail belongs to and where that attachment needs correction.

## Where Sashmark fits

Desktop Markdown reading, with editing also planned for v1, is Sashmark's intended use while it remains in development. Internal AI is not part of Sashmark.