The scenario
The required invariant is byte-for-byte compatibility, including whitespace and line endings.
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 establishes what must be preserved before structure changes make regressions harder to diagnose.
A concrete outcome
Capture the formatter’s current intentional output before extracting duplicate logic.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
Inspect the format contract and representative consumers. Clarify contradictory expectations rather than automatically snapshotting a known defect.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Cover empty input, delimiters, quotes, newlines and representative records. Compare bytes and explain why each expectation is intentional.
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.