While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, research shows that their effectiveness depends not only on explicit prompts but also on the broader context provided. This requirement is especially pronounced in software engineering, where the goals, architecture, and collaborative conventions of an existing project play critical roles in response quality. To support this, many AI coding assistants have introduced ways for developers to author persistent, machine-readable directives that encode a project’s unique constraints. Although this practice is growing, the content of these directives remains unstudied.

YouTube is the world's most widely used video platform, with over 70% of content viewed through algorithmic recommendations. While prior audits have examined polarization in YouTube's long-form video recommendations, the platform's fast-growing Shorts feature remains understudied. In this paper, we present the first large-scale audit comparing political content exposure and engagement dynamics across short-form and long-form videos on YouTube. We design a matched audit based on the insight that many news media organizations publish both short and long versions of the same content and collect 50,000 pairs of long-form and short-form video recommendations from both political and nonpolitcal seed videos. We analyze recommendations along several dimensions: the frequency of political recommendations, the diversity of retrieved videos, the engagement those videos receive, and finally, the partisan alignment between recommended videos and seed videos. Our results highlight fundamental differences between each algorithm, which we hope we can inform future research in analyzing the impact of YouTube recommendations.