The scenario
The change was requested to enable one specific workflow, not general unattended access.
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 separates a valid configuration file from an appropriately scoped authorization decision.
A concrete outcome
Review the configuration diff for accidental permission or data-exposure expansion.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
Identify affected environments, granted capabilities and data destinations. Compare with the narrow workflow requirements and existing policy. Do not activate the configuration.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Explain each new grant, detect unrelated broadening, and identify what documentation or runtime check is still needed.
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.