Skip to main content
Back to Prompt Library
Build the complete application

Implementation brief

Inspect the original prompt language first, then copy or adapt it once you know how it fits your workflow.

Linked challenge: Build a Policy Change Monitoring and Implementation Agent

Format
Code-aware
Lines
61
Sections
11
Linked challenge
Build a Policy Change Monitoring and Implementation Agent

Prompt source

Original prompt text with formatting preserved for inspection.

61 lines
11 sections
No variables
1 code block
## Who Uses It
A governance team tracking rule changes and internal policy updates.

## What You Will Build
Build an agent that compares a supplied rule feed with company policies and creates a policy-change work queue. Explain applicability, identify gaps, and draft owner-assigned updates with evidence.

## Inputs
- Versioned rule records
- Internal policy register
- Company scope and policy owners

## Workflow
1. Classify rule versions, status, and effective dates.
2. Determine applicability using the supplied company profile.
3. Compare applicable requirements with current policies.
4. Draft a gap report and assign proposed work to policy owners.

## Interface
A rule-change dashboard with applicability decisions, policy comparisons, proposed edits, and owner assignments.

## Working Demo
Create a proposed quarterly review update for P1 assigned to IT Governance, and keep R2 on a monitoring list.

## Deliverables
- A working local application with the specified review interface.
- Source code, dependency lockfile, and setup commands.
- A recorded end-to-end demo using the supplied starter data.
- Example outputs, action logs, and automated tests.

## Starter Data
These fictional records are a small development fixture, not a production dataset. Implement the mock services described in the brief.

```json
{
  "as_of": "2026-09-19",
  "company_scope": "Region A",
  "rules": [
    {
      "id": "R1",
      "scope": "Region A",
      "status": "final",
      "effective": "2026-09-01",
      "requires": "quarterly access review"
    },
    {
      "id": "R2",
      "scope": "Region A",
      "status": "proposal",
      "requires": "monthly access review"
    }
  ],
  "policies": [
    {
      "id": "P1",
      "control": "annual access review",
      "owner": "IT Governance"
    }
  ]
}
```

## Constraints
Use fictional requirements. Do not represent the result as actual legal compliance advice.
Choose an available model that supports your implementation. Record its identifier and version.

## Evaluation
Review the complete application, not only the starter-case answers.
- The gap cites R1 and P1.
- R2 is not treated as an effective obligation.
- The proposed change has an owner and requires approval.
Add one normal case, one incomplete-input case, and one failure-recovery case.

Adaptation plan

Keep the source stable, then change the prompt in a predictable order so the next run is easier to evaluate.

Keep stable

Preserve the source structure until you know which part of the prompt is actually driving the result quality.

Tune next

Change domain facts, examples, and tool context first before you rewrite the instruction scaffold.

Verify after

Validate one failure mode at a time so prompt changes stay attributable instead of getting noisy.