Microsoft GH-300 Bundle

The alternative "Request a numbered ordered checklist with verification gates" fits another situation: An engineer wants a five-step migration checklist rather than prose. Format constraints align output to an operational workflow. Here the condition is A generated API response exposes internal implementation details to users; use "Request a minimal public contract and redact sensitive internals" instead. Audience and disclosure constraints shape safe output.

The alternative "Request plain-language risk, impact and next action" addresses A user needs a code review report readable by a non-developer product owner. Audience requirements determine useful explanation detail. It does not resolve A generated API response exposes internal implementation details to users; the correct choice is "Request a minimal public contract and redact sensitive internals". Audience and disclosure constraints shape safe output.

For the different scenario A prompt asks for unit tests but produces an essay about testing, "Require actual test code in the repository's framework" could be appropriate. Explicit deliverables prevent a shift into generic advice. The present requirement is A generated API response exposes internal implementation details to users, which calls for "Request a minimal public contract and redact sensitive internals". Audience and disclosure constraints shape safe output.

For the different scenario A generated function fails one of ten known tests, "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction" could be appropriate. Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects. The present requirement is The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous, which calls for "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only". Precise terminology removes competing interpretations.

"Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints" targets The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript. Negative and positive constraints both matter. That differs from The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous; the required decision here is "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only". Precise terminology removes competing interpretations.

The alternative "Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions" fits another situation: A developer wants the same format in future prompts. Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles. Here the condition is The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous; use "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only" instead. Precise terminology removes competing interpretations.

"Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints" targets The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript. Negative and positive constraints both matter. That differs from A generated function fails one of ten known tests; the required decision here is "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction". Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects.

The alternative "Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases" fits another situation: A response is too broad to apply to one database migration. Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope. Here the condition is A generated function fails one of ten known tests; use "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction" instead. Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects.

The alternative "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only" addresses The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous. Precise terminology removes competing interpretations. It does not resolve A generated function fails one of ten known tests; the correct choice is "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction". Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects.

The action "Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions" is useful when A developer wants the same format in future prompts. Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles. Under the stated condition The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript, instead choose "Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints". Negative and positive constraints both matter.

The alternative "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction" fits another situation: A generated function fails one of ten known tests. Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects. Here the condition is The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript; use "Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints" instead. Negative and positive constraints both matter.

For the different scenario A response is too broad to apply to one database migration, "Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases" could be appropriate. Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope. The present requirement is The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript, which calls for "Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints". Negative and positive constraints both matter.

The alternative "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only" addresses The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous. Precise terminology removes competing interpretations. It does not resolve A response is too broad to apply to one database migration; the correct choice is "Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases". Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope.

For the different scenario The assistant adds a framework despite a request for vanilla JavaScript, "Reassert the no-framework requirement and provide project constraints" could be appropriate. Negative and positive constraints both matter. The present requirement is A response is too broad to apply to one database migration, which calls for "Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases". Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope.

"Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions" targets A developer wants the same format in future prompts. Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles. That differs from A response is too broad to apply to one database migration; the required decision here is "Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases". Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope.

For the different scenario A generated function fails one of ten known tests, "Share the failing test and request a targeted correction" could be appropriate. Feedback narrows the next iteration to observed defects. The present requirement is A developer wants the same format in future prompts, which calls for "Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions". Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles.

"Split the task into inspect, plan, implement, and validate phases" targets A response is too broad to apply to one database migration. Smaller tasks expose decisions and reduce unreviewed scope. That differs from A developer wants the same format in future prompts; the required decision here is "Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions". Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles.

The action "Clarify whether empty means null, zero-length, or whitespace-only" is useful when The first answer solves the wrong edge case because the word empty was ambiguous. Precise terminology removes competing interpretations. Under the stated condition A developer wants the same format in future prompts, instead choose "Capture stable formatting rules in supported project instructions". Durable rules avoid repeating long prompt preambles.

"Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task" targets An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy. On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules. That differs from A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft; the required decision here is "Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables". Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation.

The action "Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution" is useful when An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically. Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results. Under the stated condition A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft, instead choose "Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables". Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation.

The alternative "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files" fits another situation: Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement. Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code. Here the condition is A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft; use "Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables" instead. Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation.

The action "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files" is useful when Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement. Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code. Under the stated condition An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically, instead choose "Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution". Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results.

The alternative "Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task" fits another situation: An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy. On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules. Here the condition is An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically; use "Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution" instead. Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results.

For the different scenario A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker, "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support" could be appropriate. Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations. The present requirement is An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically, which calls for "Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution". Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results.

The alternative "Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task" fits another situation: An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy. On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules. Here the condition is Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement; use "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files" instead. Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code.

For the different scenario A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker, "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support" could be appropriate. Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations. The present requirement is Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement, which calls for "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files". Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code.

"Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables" targets A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft. Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation. That differs from Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement; the required decision here is "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files". Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code.

The alternative "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support" addresses A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker. Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations. It does not resolve An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy; the correct choice is "Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task". On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules.

For the different scenario A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft, "Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables" could be appropriate. Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation. The present requirement is An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy, which calls for "Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task". On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules.

The action "Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution" is useful when An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically. Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results. Under the stated condition An engineer wants a one-time incident triage prompt rather than permanent policy, instead choose "Invoke a stored prompt file for that incident task". On-demand prompts differ from always-on rules.

For the different scenario A migration prompt file contains sensitive production credentials copied from a draft, "Replace credentials with placeholders and specify safe input variables" could be appropriate. Reusable prompts can otherwise disclose the same secret on every invocation. The present requirement is A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker, which calls for "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support". Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations.

"Run the tests with CI or a command rather than treating instructions as execution" targets An engineer expects a Copilot instructions file to execute the repository test suite automatically. Instruction files guide response generation but cannot attest to real test results. That differs from A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker; the required decision here is "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support". Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations.

The action "Add file-path-specific instructions for migration files" is useful when Only migration scripts need an extra database rollback requirement. Scoped instructions avoid burdening unrelated code. Under the stated condition A custom prompt file does not appear in the IDE's picker, instead choose "Verify filename, directory and IDE feature support". Prompt file discovery depends on supported formats and locations.