Issue #95: Prompt Refinement Tracking#97
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR establishes foundational policies for prompt refinement tracking as part of Issue #95. It adds critical file editing policies and markdown formatting guidelines to prevent issues identified during Issue #63 implementation.
Key Changes:
- Added File Editing Policy to enforce proper tool usage and workspace-local temporary files
- Added Markdown Formatting guidelines for handling nested code blocks
- Added
.tmp/directory to.gitignorefor workspace-local temporary files
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.gitignore |
Adds .tmp/ directory exclusion to support workspace-local temporary file policy |
.github/copilot-instructions.md |
Adds comprehensive File Editing Policy (lines 55-148) and Markdown Formatting guidelines (lines 270-277) to enforce best practices for file operations and documentation |
| When creating content with nested fenced code blocks: | ||
| - **Simple nesting:** Use quad-backticks (````) for outer blocks that contain triple-backticked code (per CommonMark spec) | ||
| - **Complex nesting (lists + code blocks):** Move code blocks outside list indentation when inside markdown blocks | ||
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented ```code``` block inside ````markdown block |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The backtick rendering in line 274 may not display correctly in markdown. The text reads "List item with indented code block inside ````markdown block" but the three backticks in the middle will likely be interpreted as a code fence opening, breaking the rendering. Consider using literal backtick references or escaping them differently, such as "List item with indented triple-backticked code block inside quad-backticked markdown block" or using backtick entities.
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented ```code``` block inside ````markdown block | |
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented triple-backticked code block inside quad-backticked markdown block |
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented ```code``` block inside ````markdown block | ||
| - ✅ CORRECT: List items, then standalone ```code``` block (not indented), then more list items |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The backtick rendering in line 275 may not display correctly in markdown. The text reads "List items, then standalone code block (not indented)" but the three backticks will likely be interpreted as a code fence opening, breaking the rendering. Consider using literal backtick references or escaping them differently, such as "List items, then standalone triple-backticked code block (not indented)" or using backtick entities.
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented ```code``` block inside ````markdown block | |
| - ✅ CORRECT: List items, then standalone ```code``` block (not indented), then more list items | |
| - ❌ WRONG: List item with indented triple-backticked `code` block inside ````markdown block | |
| - ✅ CORRECT: List items, then standalone triple-backticked `code` block (not indented), then more list items |
Addresses #95
This PR tracks the implementation of prompt refinement improvements identified during Issue #63.
Implementation Sequence
Per Issue #95, this work is broken down into sub-issues to be resolved in order:
Current Status
Branch: feature/issue-95-prompt-refinement
Sub-branches: Each sub-issue will have its own feature branch merged into this one
Changes in This PR
Further changes will be added as sub-issues are completed.