The four heights
The same task, four distances: today's deadline, the next reviewer, the stuck moment, the pattern.
Execute — do the immediate task
+I need the list of people who have contributed to the public repo katy-org/fastparse so I can…
Execute — do the immediate task
+I need the list of people who have contributed to the public repo katy-org/fastparse so I can confirm code ownership before we accept the PR. Show username, full name where available, first contribution date, and whether they have write access. Put the ones with recent activity in the last six months at the top and highlight any bots or service accounts.
Pasted it? When the reply comes back, push once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part. — Did this prompt help?
Improve — make it easier to accept
+Before I share contributors with legal, make the list easy to vet: surface total contributors, flag…
Improve — make it easier to accept
+Before I share contributors with legal, make the list easy to vet: surface total contributors, flag anyone with unknown email or no profile name, call out external contractors and forks' lead contributors, and mark anyone who appears only in test files. Also note people with admin or write privileges who haven't pushed in over a year.
Pasted it? When the reply comes back, push once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part. — Did this prompt help?
Decide — diagnose the stuck moment
+I opened katy-org/fastparse because a vendor claims credit for code but the contributors list shows…
Decide — diagnose the stuck moment
+I clicked the contributors tab and see unexpected names
I opened katy-org/fastparse because a vendor claims credit for code but the contributors list shows unfamiliar usernames and a couple of bot accounts. I do not know which entries are bots, which are contractors, and which represent merged forks. What’s the best way to verify true contributors, identify bots, and produce a defensible contributors report for procurement?
Pasted it? When the reply comes back, push once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part. — Did this prompt help?
Become — change the pattern
+On every merge we spend hours tracing who actually wrote files and whether they belong to…
Become — change the pattern
+we keep backtracking to confirm authorship on merges
On every merge we spend hours tracing who actually wrote files and whether they belong to employees, contractors, or external projects. How should I change our workflow so contributors are verified earlier and we stop losing time resolving authorship during release and procurement checks?
Pasted it? When the reply comes back, push once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part. — Did this prompt help?
Next to this one
Other code hosting work people do in GitHub.
Every task here came from the work, not from a feature list — which is why the prompts name what you want done and never the button that does it. The tool changes; the work does not.
Copyright © LLOS.ai · 2026 — original pedagogy, voice, and design — all rights reserved.
The rest of the map
Same library, five ways in.