Arguments
What you get
The six verdicts
It never says “do not build this”
“No evidence” means the feedback is silent. Silence has causes:- A compliance obligation nobody files a support ticket about.
- A platform bet.
- Something nobody has been asked.
Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: /docs/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
Checks a spec against what customers actually asked for, and reports what is missing, what was invented, and what is already solved.
/closedloop-scope-guard we're about to build tiered export permissions: <paste the spec>
| Argument | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| A spec, PRD, ticket, plain description, or a file path | yes |
SCOPE GUARD: Tiered export permissions
YOUR SPEC, AS I READ IT
1. Admins can restrict which fields appear in an export
2. Admins can restrict who may run an export
3. Export runs are logged for audit
Correct the split before you read anything below it.
1. RESTRICT FIELDS SHARPEN
Matched: "exports show salaries to contractors"
"We had to stop contractors exporting at all because the
sheet carries everyone's salary." Contoso Retail, deal blocker
Customers describe field-level control on ONE column, not a
configurable set. Say salary, not fields.
2. RESTRICT WHO MAY RUN SPLIT
Matched two different mechanics that would be built and
tested separately: turning export off per role, and
requiring approval per run.
3. AUDIT LOG NO EVIDENCE
Nothing in the feedback describes this. That is not an
argument against it. Compliance requirements do not arrive
through support tickets.
MISSING FROM THE SPEC ADD
Scheduled exports keep running after someone loses access.
Raised by several customers. No requirement covers it.
REJECTED MATCHES
"Export timeout" theme: a performance problem, not a
permissions one. Dropped, and its numbers with it.
| Verdict | What it means |
|---|---|
| Sharpen | The evidence describes the need more precisely than the requirement does. |
| Split | The evidence describes two mechanics that would be built and tested separately. |
| Merge | Customers describe two of your requirements as steps in one workflow. |
| Add | Customers raised a need in this area that no requirement covers. |
| No evidence | Nothing in the feedback describes this requirement. |
| Build as written | Covered, precise, nothing to change. |