The scenario
Product rule: undo restores that item and its prior position; other edits made afterwards must be preserved.
Required context: a selected repository matching this scenario, relevant task evidence, and access to its instructions and checks. Use redacted or synthetic data where appropriate.
Adapt the complete prompt
Edits stay in this browser tab. Saving bookmarks the original example; export your edited version to keep it elsewhere.
Why this is a strong example
It states what undo must restore and prevents rollback from discarding unrelated work.
A concrete outcome
Add an undo affordance for removing an item from the editable list, within the current session.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
Inspect the current deletion flow. Keep the existing persistence model. If removal has irreversible external effects, stop and explain the conflict before implementing undo.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Remove an item, edit another, then undo. Verify original position and preservation of the later edit, plus failure handling if persistence fails.
These checks describe what would make acceptance justified; asking for them does not mean they ran.
A safe way to encounter uncertainty
If the repository contradicts these assumptions, required access is unavailable, or a consequential product decision is missing, explain the conflict and pause the dependent work. Preserve unrelated changes.
Consequential uncertainty stays visible rather than being converted into an invented requirement.