P277 · Context management

Check instruction scope before resolving conflicts

Compare the scope and load conditions of two instructions before treating different wording as a conflict.

Editorially reviewed

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

Maintain two agent guides. Teaching root guide R requires integration tests for code changes; docs guide D requires link checks for documentation-only edits. The current change touches docs text only. Different commands need scope analysis before deleting an older rule.

Mechanism

Record location, paths, task trigger and loading moment for each rule. Retain rules for separate scopes. For incompatible requirements governing the same task, cite both and resolve using established instruction hierarchy and product constraints. History explains origins but does not automatically establish correctness/permission. Record unresolved conflicts rather than editing outside-project configuration to hide them.

Bad example

R's integration rule is older than D's docs rule. Delete R for this documentation edit so future code changes also run link checks only.

Good example

Compare R and D first: R covers code changes, D documentation-only changes, and this task is docs text. Apply D's link check while preserving R. Cite scope locations. If another rule explicitly requires integration tests for all changes, record its same-task conflict with D and check effective authority rather than weakening it based only on commit chronology.

Why the change matters

Different wording can represent distinct triggers. Scope comparison avoids misclassifying a useful division as duplication/conflict; genuine contradictions remain attached to a concrete task and evidence rather than a newer-is-authoritative shortcut.

Observable expectation

The teaching docs edit receives D’s link-check plan; a code edit retains R’s integration plan. Adding an all-changes integration rule exposes a cited same-task conflict.

Preserve unrelated requirements. Deleting R without scope evidence or changing outside configuration fails this procedure.

Limits

This diagnoses conflicts without redefining host instruction priority. Repository chronology cannot override safety, explicit user scope or authoritative product constraints. Establish ambiguous loading semantics first.

Sources and evidence

Read the editorial criteria