The scenario
The existing authorization and deletion endpoint must remain authoritative. Product rule: cancellation makes no deletion request.
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
The confirmation is treated as user interaction, not a replacement for authorization.
A concrete outcome
Require a clear confirmation before permanently deleting a project.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
Reuse the project’s dialog primitive. Identify the project by name, explain permanence and preserve keyboard/focus behavior. Do not weaken server checks.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Confirm deletion invokes the existing flow once; cancel and Escape do not invoke it. Check focus return and a server-denied deletion.
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.