Microsoft GH-300 Bundle

The alternative "Require the configured change approval and backup verification" fits another situation: An agent needs to execute a database migration in a regulated environment. Agentic execution does not replace change management. Here the condition is An agent wants to commit a generated secret to demonstrate the solution; use "Mock a credential provider and assert runtime token injection" instead. A test double exercises secret consumption without placing credentials in source control.

The alternative "Restrict the command to verified disposable outputs" addresses A terminal assistant asks permission to delete generated artifacts and source code together. Broad file operations risk removing canonical assets. It does not resolve An agent wants to commit a generated secret to demonstrate the solution; the correct choice is "Mock a credential provider and assert runtime token injection". A test double exercises secret consumption without placing credentials in source control.

For the different scenario A tool call would publish an internal repository while investigating a build error, "Refuse public publishing and preserve repository visibility" could be appropriate. Diagnostic permission does not imply distribution permission. The present requirement is An agent wants to commit a generated secret to demonstrate the solution, which calls for "Mock a credential provider and assert runtime token injection". A test double exercises secret consumption without placing credentials in source control.

The alternative "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature" addresses A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs. Client versions determine which interactions are available. It does not resolve A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability; the correct choice is "Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE". A subscription alone does not install the client integration.

For the different scenario A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat, "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment" could be appropriate. Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device. The present requirement is A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability, which calls for "Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE". A subscription alone does not install the client integration.

The action "Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability" is useful when A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat. Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment. Under the stated condition A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability, instead choose "Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE". A subscription alone does not install the client integration.

For the different scenario A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat, "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment" could be appropriate. Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device. The present requirement is An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts, which calls for "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access". Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account.

"Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE" targets A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability. A subscription alone does not install the client integration. That differs from An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts; the required decision here is "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access". Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account.

The alternative "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature" fits another situation: A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs. Client versions determine which interactions are available. Here the condition is An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts; use "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access" instead. Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account.

The action "Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE" is useful when A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability. A subscription alone does not install the client integration. Under the stated condition A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat, instead choose "Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability". Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment.

The alternative "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access" fits another situation: An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts. Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account. Here the condition is A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat; use "Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability" instead. Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment.

The alternative "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment" addresses A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat. Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device. It does not resolve A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat; the correct choice is "Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability". Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment.

The action "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access" is useful when An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts. Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account. Under the stated condition A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs, instead choose "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature". Client versions determine which interactions are available.

The alternative "Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability" addresses A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat. Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment. It does not resolve A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs; the correct choice is "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature". Client versions determine which interactions are available.

For the different scenario A developer has a valid Copilot license but their editor shows no Copilot capability, "Install and enable the supported Copilot extension for that IDE" could be appropriate. A subscription alone does not install the client integration. The present requirement is A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs, which calls for "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature". Client versions determine which interactions are available.

The alternative "Confirm compatible IDE and extension versions before configuring the feature" addresses A team wants all editors to update to current supported Copilot APIs. Client versions determine which interactions are available. It does not resolve A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat; the correct choice is "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment". Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device.

For the different scenario An extension is installed but requests keep returning sign-in prompts, "Authenticate the extension with the GitHub identity that has Copilot access" could be appropriate. Editor access depends on the authenticated and entitled account. The present requirement is A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat, which calls for "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment". Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device.

"Inspect organization policy and effective feature availability" targets A managed-organization user sees a feature disabled despite a paid seat. Organization controls can disable capabilities separately from subscription assignment. That differs from A developer signed into a personal account cannot use their organization-assigned seat; the required decision here is "Switch to the account receiving the organization's assignment". Seats and policy scope follow GitHub identities rather than the device.

For the different scenario A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful, "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it" could be appropriate. Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code. The present requirement is An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature, which calls for "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor". Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message.

"Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion" targets A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors. Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete. That differs from An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature; the required decision here is "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor". Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message.

The alternative "Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it" fits another situation: A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately. Inserting text into a file does not run a program. Here the condition is An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature; use "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor" instead. Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message.

"Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation" targets A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line. Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted. That differs from A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful; the required decision here is "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it". Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code.

The alternative "Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it" fits another situation: A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately. Inserting text into a file does not run a program. Here the condition is A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful; use "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it" instead. Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code.

The alternative "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor" addresses An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature. Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message. It does not resolve A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful; the correct choice is "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it". Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code.

The action "Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion" is useful when A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors. Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete. Under the stated condition A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line, instead choose "Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation". Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted.

The alternative "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor" addresses An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature. Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message. It does not resolve A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line; the correct choice is "Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation". Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted.

For the different scenario A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful, "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it" could be appropriate. Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code. The present requirement is A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line, which calls for "Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation". Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted.

The alternative "Inspect and edit the suggestion before accepting it" fits another situation: A suggested completion introduces incorrect validation even though it looks useful. Ghost text is a proposal rather than vetted executable code. Here the condition is A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors; use "Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion" instead. Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete.

The alternative "Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation" addresses A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line. Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted. It does not resolve A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors; the correct choice is "Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion". Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete.

"Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it" targets A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately. Inserting text into a file does not run a program. That differs from A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors; the required decision here is "Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion". Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete.

The alternative "Invoke the IDE's supported alternatives or suggestion navigation" addresses A developer wants to see alternate code completions for the same line. Multiple candidates can be considered before a selection is accepted. It does not resolve A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately; the correct choice is "Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it". Inserting text into a file does not run a program.

For the different scenario A completion keeps using a stale variable name despite surrounding refactors, "Update nearby context and retry the inline suggestion" could be appropriate. Completions condition on local context that may be inconsistent or incomplete. The present requirement is A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately, which calls for "Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it". Inserting text into a file does not run a program.

The action "Use inline code suggestions in the active editor" is useful when An engineer wants a completion directly after a partially typed function signature. Inline completions extend nearby code without requiring a separate chat message. Under the stated condition A teammate assumes Tab always runs generated code immediately, instead choose "Distinguish accepting a completion from executing or testing it". Inserting text into a file does not run a program.