Prompt file imported from EdenNelson/AgentGov (.github/prompts/plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict.prompt.md). Copyright stays with the author.

PLAN: Resolve Governance Hard Gate vs. Exemption Scope Contradiction

Name: plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict
Author: EdenNelson

Date: January 30, 2026
Status: Proposed
Scope: Governance clarification (non-breaking, but affects operational rules)
Severity: High (affects agent behavior for governance file edits)

Problem Statement

A direct contradiction exists between two governance documents about exemptions for minor governance file changes:

.github/copilot-instructions.md (Automatic Governance Hard Gate):
- Section: "No Exemptions"
- States: "Typos in governance files: Require a plan"

Scope: Applies to all governance files (.github/agents/.agent.md, .github/instructions/.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.)
Message: "Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable."

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 (Exempt Changes):
- Section: "Exempt Changes (No Plan Required)"
- States: "Syntax fixes: Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change)"
- Lists: "Minor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan"
- Scope: Appears to be universal (includes governance files by implication)

The Contradiction: Which rule applies to a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md? Does the Hard Gate's "No Exemptions" override spec-protocol instructions exemption list?

Impact:

Agents are confused about when to create plans for governance edits
Inconsistent behavior: Some agents may skip plans for typos (following SPEC_PROTOCOL); others may create plans (following copilot-instructions.md)
Governance audit trail becomes unreliable if minor edits bypass planning
Downstream consumers cannot trust that all governance changes are tracked

Analysis & Assessment

Current State

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exemptions (Line ~325):

Exempt Changes (No Plan Required)

Minor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan:

- Syntax fixes: Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change)
- Comment improvements: Clarifying comments, updating examples (no code change)
- Documentation edits: Link fixes, typo corrections, wording clarity (no guidance change)
- Small refactors: Variable renames, method extractions (internal only, no interface change)

Rule of Thumb: If the change could affect any user-facing surface, workflow, API, config, or 
output format — create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan.

Interpretation: .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md exempts minor edits broadly, implying governance files are included (since governance is "documentation" and "guidance").

.github/copilot-instructions.md (Hard Gate):

### No Exemptions

- Typos in governance files: Require a plan
- Comment improvements: Require a plan
- Link fixes: Require a plan
- Small formatting changes: Require a plan

Interpretation: copilot-instructions.md explicitly rejects all exemptions for governance files, creating a hard gate.

Root Cause

Why the contradiction exists:

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md was written first (early governance framework) with broad exemptions
.github/copilot-instructions.md was written later (RULE #0 hardening) to add strict governance protection
The conflict was not resolved — both documents exist, creating confusion

The Principle Clash

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md Principle:

"If the change could affect any user-facing surface... create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan."

Implication: Typos in governance are "minor" and do not affect user-facing surfaces; exempt.

.github/copilot-instructions.md Principle:

"Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable."

Implication: Governance files are special; even typos must be tracked via plans to ensure durability and auditability.

Assessment

Both principles have merit:

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md is correct: For code (scripts, configs), typos are low-risk and can be fixed without plans
.github/copilot-instructions.md is correct: For governance, even typos are high-risk because downstream consumers rely on governance as their source of truth

The Resolution: Governance files are special and deserve their own exemption rules. They should not follow the same exemption logic as code.

Plan

STAGE 1: Clarify .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md — Add Governance Scope Clarification

Objective: Update .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 to explicitly exclude governance files from exemptions

Deliverables:

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3, add clarification before "Exempt Changes" heading:

### 3.3 Exempt Changes (No Plan Required) — CODE ONLY

**Scope:** This exemption applies to code files (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, configs, etc.), NOT governance files.

**Governance File Exception:** See .github/copilot-instructions.md for governance file rules. 
All governance file modifications (typos, comments, links, formatting) require a plan and audit trail, 
even if the change is minor or does not alter behavior.

---

Minor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan:
...

Checkpoint: .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md clarified and reviewed

STAGE 2: Update .github/copilot-instructions.md — Cross-Link and Clarify

Objective: Make the Hard Gate more explicit and cross-link to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md

Deliverables:

.github/copilot-instructions.md, Hard Gate section, add:
- Cross-reference to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3
- Clarify: "This rule applies only to governance files. For code files, see .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exempt Changes."
- Rationale: "Governance files are the source of truth for downstream consumers. All changes must be durable, auditable, and traced."

Checkpoint: copilot-instructions.md updated and reviewed

STAGE 3: Add FAQ or Decision Tree

Objective: Provide agents with a simple decision tree

Deliverable:

Add section to either .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md or .github/copilot-instructions.md:

## Quick Decision Tree: Do I Need a Plan?

1. **What am I editing?**
  - [ ] A governance file (.github/agents/*.agent.md, .github/instructions/*.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.)
       → **YES, create a plan** (even for typos)
   - [ ] A code file (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, config, etc.)
       → Go to step 2

2. **What kind of change?**
   - [ ] Typo, formatting, comment fix, link fix
       → **NO, no plan required** (for code only)
   - [ ] Logic change, new feature, refactor, behavior change
       → **YES, create a plan**

Checkpoint: Decision tree added

STAGE 4: Regression Test (Probe)

Objective: Verify agents understand the governance hard gate

Deliverable:

Create prompt: "Fix a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md (change 'Powershell' to 'PowerShell')"
Load updated governance
Verify agent:
- Recognizes this is a governance file edit
- Creates a plan in .github/prompts/
- Does NOT apply the "code exemption"

Secondary Test:

Create prompt: "Fix a typo in a PowerShell script (change variable name)"
Verify agent:
- Recognizes this is a code file edit
- Applies the exemption; does NOT create a plan
- Directly fixes the typo

Checkpoint: Probe tests pass

Consent Gate

Change Type: Non-breaking governance clarification

Impact Scope:

Agent behavior: Will now consistently require plans for ALL governance file edits
Operational friction: Slightly higher for governance typos (must create plan first)
Durability: Improved; all governance changes are tracked and auditable

Migration Path:

Agents reading old guidance (.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md without clarification) may mistakenly apply code exemptions to governance
New agents reading updated guidance will get it right
No breaking change to consumers; only clarifies internal process

User Approval Requested:

Do you agree that all governance file changes (including typos) should require plans for audit trail durability?
Should we explicitly state that code files follow different exemption rules than governance files?

Approved: [ ] User confirms governance hard gate is the correct priority

References

.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 (current exemptions)
.github/copilot-instructions.md (Hard Gate section)
.github/instructions/general-coding.instructions.md §1.1 (Correctness, Clarity principle)

# PLAN: Resolve Governance Hard Gate vs. Exemption Scope Contradiction **Date:** January 30, 2026 **Status:** Proposed **Scope:** Governance clarification (non-breaking, but affects operational rules) **Severity:** High (affects agent behavior for governance file edits) --- ## Problem Statement A direct contradiction exists between two governance documents about exemptions for minor governance file changes: 1. **.github/copilot-instructions.md** (Automatic Governance Hard Gate): - Section: "No Exemptions" - States: "Typos in governance files: **Require a plan**" - Scope: Applies to all governance files (.github/agents/*.agent.md, .github/instructions/*.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.) - **Message:** "Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable." 2. **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3** (Exempt Changes): - Section: "Exempt Changes (No Plan Required)" - States: "**Syntax fixes:** Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change)" - Lists: "Minor changes that may proceed **without** a persisted plan" - **Scope:** Appears to be universal (includes governance files by implication) **The Contradiction:** Which rule applies to a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md? Does the Hard Gate's "No Exemptions" override spec-protocol instructions exemption list? **Impact:** - Agents are confused about when to create plans for governance edits - Inconsistent behavior: Some agents may skip plans for typos (following SPEC_PROTOCOL); others may create plans (following copilot-instructions.md) - Governance audit trail becomes unreliable if minor edits bypass planning - Downstream consumers cannot trust that all governance changes are tracked --- ## Analysis & Assessment ### Current State **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exemptions (Line ~325):** ``` Exempt Changes (No Plan Required) Minor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan: - Syntax fixes: Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change) - Comment improvements: Clarifying comments, updating examples (no code change) - Documentation edits: Link fixes, typo corrections, wording clarity (no guidance change) - Small refactors: Variable renames, method extractions (internal only, no interface change) Rule of Thumb: If the change could affect any user-facing surface, workflow, API, config, or output format — create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan. ``` **Interpretation:** .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md exempts minor edits **broadly**, implying governance files are included (since governance is "documentation" and "guidance"). **.github/copilot-instructions.md (Hard Gate):** ``` ### No Exemptions - Typos in governance files: Require a plan - Comment improvements: Require a plan - Link fixes: Require a plan - Small formatting changes: Require a plan ``` **Interpretation:** copilot-instructions.md **explicitly rejects all exemptions** for governance files, creating a hard gate. ### Root Cause **Why the contradiction exists:** 1. **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md was written first** (early governance framework) with broad exemptions 2. **.github/copilot-instructions.md was written later** (RULE #0 hardening) to add strict governance protection 3. **The conflict was not resolved** — both documents exist, creating confusion ### The Principle Clash **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md Principle:** > "If the change could affect any user-facing surface... create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan." **Implication:** Typos in governance are "minor" and do not affect user-facing surfaces; exempt. **.github/copilot-instructions.md Principle:** > "Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable." **Implication:** Governance files are special; even typos must be tracked via plans to ensure durability and auditability. ### Assessment **Both principles have merit:** - **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md is correct:** For code (scripts, configs), typos are low-risk and can be fixed without plans - **.github/copilot-instructions.md is correct:** For governance, even typos are high-risk because downstream consumers rely on governance as their source of truth **The Resolution:** Governance files are special and deserve their own exemption rules. They should not follow the same exemption logic as code. --- ## Plan ### STAGE 1: Clarify .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md — Add Governance Scope Clarification **Objective:** Update .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 to explicitly exclude governance files from exemptions **Deliverables:** - [ ] .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3, add clarification before "Exempt Changes" heading: ```markdown ### 3.3 Exempt Changes (No Plan Required) — CODE ONLY **Scope:** This exemption applies to code files (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, configs, etc.), NOT governance files. **Governance File Exception:** See .github/copilot-instructions.md for governance file rules. All governance file modifications (typos, comments, links, formatting) require a plan and audit trail, even if the change is minor or does not alter behavior. --- Minor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan: ... ``` **Checkpoint:** .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md clarified and reviewed ### STAGE 2: Update .github/copilot-instructions.md — Cross-Link and Clarify **Objective:** Make the Hard Gate more explicit and cross-link to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md **Deliverables:** - [ ] .github/copilot-instructions.md, Hard Gate section, add: - Cross-reference to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 - Clarify: "This rule applies **only to governance files**. For code files, see .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exempt Changes." - Rationale: "Governance files are the source of truth for downstream consumers. All changes must be durable, auditable, and traced." **Checkpoint:** copilot-instructions.md updated and reviewed ### STAGE 3: Add FAQ or Decision Tree **Objective:** Provide agents with a simple decision tree **Deliverable:** - [ ] Add section to either .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md or .github/copilot-instructions.md: ```markdown ## Quick Decision Tree: Do I Need a Plan? 1. **What am I editing?** - [ ] A governance file (.github/agents/*.agent.md, .github/instructions/*.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.) → **YES, create a plan** (even for typos) - [ ] A code file (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, config, etc.) → Go to step 2 2. **What kind of change?** - [ ] Typo, formatting, comment fix, link fix → **NO, no plan required** (for code only) - [ ] Logic change, new feature, refactor, behavior change → **YES, create a plan** ``` **Checkpoint:** Decision tree added ### STAGE 4: Regression Test (Probe) **Objective:** Verify agents understand the governance hard gate **Deliverable:** - [ ] Create prompt: "Fix a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md (change 'Powershell' to 'PowerShell')" - [ ] Load updated governance - [ ] Verify agent: - Recognizes this is a governance file edit - Creates a plan in `.github/prompts/` - Does NOT apply the "code exemption" **Secondary Test:** - [ ] Create prompt: "Fix a typo in a PowerShell script (change variable name)" - [ ] Verify agent: - Recognizes this is a code file edit - Applies the exemption; does NOT create a plan - Directly fixes the typo **Checkpoint:** Probe tests pass --- ## Consent Gate **Change Type:** Non-breaking governance clarification **Impact Scope:** - **Agent behavior:** Will now consistently require plans for ALL governance file edits - **Operational friction:** Slightly higher for governance typos (must create plan first) - **Durability:** Improved; all governance changes are tracked and auditable **Migration Path:** - Agents reading old guidance (.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md without clarification) may mistakenly apply code exemptions to governance - New agents reading updated guidance will get it right - No breaking change to consumers; only clarifies internal process **User Approval Requested:** 1. Do you agree that **all** governance file changes (including typos) should require plans for audit trail durability? 2. Should we explicitly state that code files follow different exemption rules than governance files? **Approved:** [ ] User confirms governance hard gate is the correct priority --- ## References - [.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md](../../.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md) §3.3 (current exemptions) - [.github/copilot-instructions.md](../../.github/copilot-instructions.md) (Hard Gate section) - [.github/instructions/general-coding.instructions.md](../../.github/instructions/general-coding.instructions.md) §1.1 (Correctness, Clarity principle)

{ "prompt": "# PLAN: Resolve Governance Hard Gate vs. Exemption Scope Contradiction\n\n**Date:** January 30, 2026 \n**Status:** Proposed \n**Scope:** Governance clarification (non-breaking, but affects operational rules) \n**Severity:** High (affects agent behavior for governance file edits)\n\n---\n\n## Problem Statement\n\nA direct contradiction exists between two governance documents about exemptions for minor governance file changes:\n\n1. **.github/copilot-instructions.md** (Automatic Governance Hard Gate):\n - Section: \"No Exemptions\"\n - States: \"Typos in governance files: **Require a plan**\"\n - Scope: Applies to all governance files (.github/agents/*.agent.md, .github/instructions/*.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.)\n - **Message:** \"Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable.\"\n\n2. **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3** (Exempt Changes):\n - Section: \"Exempt Changes (No Plan Required)\"\n - States: \"**Syntax fixes:** Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change)\"\n - Lists: \"Minor changes that may proceed **without** a persisted plan\"\n - **Scope:** Appears to be universal (includes governance files by implication)\n\n**The Contradiction:** Which rule applies to a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md? Does the Hard Gate's \"No Exemptions\" override spec-protocol instructions exemption list?\n\n**Impact:**\n- Agents are confused about when to create plans for governance edits\n- Inconsistent behavior: Some agents may skip plans for typos (following SPEC_PROTOCOL); others may create plans (following copilot-instructions.md)\n- Governance audit trail becomes unreliable if minor edits bypass planning\n- Downstream consumers cannot trust that all governance changes are tracked\n\n---\n\n## Analysis & Assessment\n\n### Current State\n\n**.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exemptions (Line ~325):**\n```\nExempt Changes (No Plan Required)\n\nMinor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan:\n\n- Syntax fixes: Correcting typos, formatting, indentation (no behavior change)\n- Comment improvements: Clarifying comments, updating examples (no code change)\n- Documentation edits: Link fixes, typo corrections, wording clarity (no guidance change)\n- Small refactors: Variable renames, method extractions (internal only, no interface change)\n\nRule of Thumb: If the change could affect any user-facing surface, workflow, API, config, or \noutput format — create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan.\n```\n\n**Interpretation:** .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md exempts minor edits **broadly**, implying governance files are included (since governance is \"documentation\" and \"guidance\").\n\n**.github/copilot-instructions.md (Hard Gate):**\n```\n### No Exemptions\n\n- Typos in governance files: Require a plan\n- Comment improvements: Require a plan\n- Link fixes: Require a plan\n- Small formatting changes: Require a plan\n```\n\n**Interpretation:** copilot-instructions.md **explicitly rejects all exemptions** for governance files, creating a hard gate.\n\n### Root Cause\n\n**Why the contradiction exists:**\n\n1. **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md was written first** (early governance framework) with broad exemptions\n2. **.github/copilot-instructions.md was written later** (RULE #0 hardening) to add strict governance protection\n3. **The conflict was not resolved** — both documents exist, creating confusion\n\n### The Principle Clash\n\n**.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md Principle:**\n> \"If the change could affect any user-facing surface... create a plan. When in doubt, create a plan.\"\n\n**Implication:** Typos in governance are \"minor\" and do not affect user-facing surfaces; exempt.\n\n**.github/copilot-instructions.md Principle:**\n> \"Governance changes are never 'small' — they affect the framework and all downstream consumers. All modifications must be auditable and durable.\"\n\n**Implication:** Governance files are special; even typos must be tracked via plans to ensure durability and auditability.\n\n### Assessment\n\n**Both principles have merit:**\n\n- **.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md is correct:** For code (scripts, configs), typos are low-risk and can be fixed without plans\n- **.github/copilot-instructions.md is correct:** For governance, even typos are high-risk because downstream consumers rely on governance as their source of truth\n\n**The Resolution:** Governance files are special and deserve their own exemption rules. They should not follow the same exemption logic as code.\n\n---\n\n## Plan\n\n### STAGE 1: Clarify .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md — Add Governance Scope Clarification\n\n**Objective:** Update .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 to explicitly exclude governance files from exemptions\n\n**Deliverables:**\n- [ ] .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3, add clarification before \"Exempt Changes\" heading:\n\n```markdown\n### 3.3 Exempt Changes (No Plan Required) — CODE ONLY\n\n**Scope:** This exemption applies to code files (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, configs, etc.), NOT governance files.\n\n**Governance File Exception:** See .github/copilot-instructions.md for governance file rules. \nAll governance file modifications (typos, comments, links, formatting) require a plan and audit trail, \neven if the change is minor or does not alter behavior.\n\n---\n\nMinor changes that may proceed without a persisted plan:\n...\n```\n\n**Checkpoint:** .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md clarified and reviewed\n\n### STAGE 2: Update .github/copilot-instructions.md — Cross-Link and Clarify\n\n**Objective:** Make the Hard Gate more explicit and cross-link to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md\n\n**Deliverables:**\n- [ ] .github/copilot-instructions.md, Hard Gate section, add:\n - Cross-reference to .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3\n - Clarify: \"This rule applies **only to governance files**. For code files, see .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md §3.3 Exempt Changes.\"\n - Rationale: \"Governance files are the source of truth for downstream consumers. All changes must be durable, auditable, and traced.\"\n\n**Checkpoint:** copilot-instructions.md updated and reviewed\n\n### STAGE 3: Add FAQ or Decision Tree\n\n**Objective:** Provide agents with a simple decision tree\n\n**Deliverable:**\n- [ ] Add section to either .github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md or .github/copilot-instructions.md:\n\n```markdown\n## Quick Decision Tree: Do I Need a Plan?\n\n1. **What am I editing?**\n - [ ] A governance file (.github/agents/*.agent.md, .github/instructions/*.instructions.md, .github/skills/*/SKILL.md, etc.)\n → **YES, create a plan** (even for typos)\n - [ ] A code file (*.ps1, *.sh, *.py, config, etc.)\n → Go to step 2\n\n2. **What kind of change?**\n - [ ] Typo, formatting, comment fix, link fix\n → **NO, no plan required** (for code only)\n - [ ] Logic change, new feature, refactor, behavior change\n → **YES, create a plan**\n```\n\n**Checkpoint:** Decision tree added\n\n### STAGE 4: Regression Test (Probe)\n\n**Objective:** Verify agents understand the governance hard gate\n\n**Deliverable:**\n- [ ] Create prompt: \"Fix a typo in .github/instructions/powershell.instructions.md (change 'Powershell' to 'PowerShell')\"\n- [ ] Load updated governance\n- [ ] Verify agent:\n - Recognizes this is a governance file edit\n - Creates a plan in `.github/prompts/`\n - Does NOT apply the \"code exemption\"\n\n**Secondary Test:**\n- [ ] Create prompt: \"Fix a typo in a PowerShell script (change variable name)\"\n- [ ] Verify agent:\n - Recognizes this is a code file edit\n - Applies the exemption; does NOT create a plan\n - Directly fixes the typo\n\n**Checkpoint:** Probe tests pass\n\n---\n\n## Consent Gate\n\n**Change Type:** Non-breaking governance clarification\n\n**Impact Scope:**\n- **Agent behavior:** Will now consistently require plans for ALL governance file edits\n- **Operational friction:** Slightly higher for governance typos (must create plan first)\n- **Durability:** Improved; all governance changes are tracked and auditable\n\n**Migration Path:**\n- Agents reading old guidance (.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md without clarification) may mistakenly apply code exemptions to governance\n- New agents reading updated guidance will get it right\n- No breaking change to consumers; only clarifies internal process\n\n**User Approval Requested:**\n1. Do you agree that **all** governance file changes (including typos) should require plans for audit trail durability?\n2. Should we explicitly state that code files follow different exemption rules than governance files?\n\n**Approved:** [ ] User confirms governance hard gate is the correct priority\n\n---\n\n## References\n\n- [.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md](../../.github/instructions/spec-protocol.instructions.md) §3.3 (current exemptions)\n- [.github/copilot-instructions.md](../../.github/copilot-instructions.md) (Hard Gate section)\n- [.github/instructions/general-coding.instructions.md](../../.github/instructions/general-coding.instructions.md) §1.1 (Correctness, Clarity principle)", "variables": [], "notes": "A direct contradiction exists between two governance documents about exemptions for minor governance file changes:", "metadata": { "source": { "provider": "github-prompts", "repository": "https://github.com/EdenNelson/AgentGov", "path": ".github/prompts/plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict.prompt.md", "ref": "4ea173c0de01e6f4cafd0707ee6b608dbbebc0b4", "url": "https://github.com/EdenNelson/AgentGov/blob/4ea173c0de01e6f4cafd0707ee6b608dbbebc0b4/.github/prompts/plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict.prompt.md", "key": "EdenNelson/AgentGov/.github/prompts/plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict.prompt.md" } } }

plan-20260130-hardgate-exemption-conflict

About