# **Prompt vs Task – Part 2**

In our development workflow, “prompt” and “task” are both written documents, both describe work we want done, and both can even talk about the same feature. But they have **different jobs** and operate at **different stages** in the process. Confusing them can lead to misaligned expectations, so here’s the clear breakdown.

---

## **1. What is a Prompt?**

A **prompt** is our **structured specification**. It’s written in `<gsl-prompt>` format, which Codex uses to ingest and reason about a feature request in a predictable way.

The **prompt’s job** is to:

* Describe the **desired end state** of the feature.
* Define **acceptance criteria** that tell us when the feature is “done.”
* Provide enough **context and examples** for anyone reading it to understand the intended behavior without seeing the code.

A prompt is **solution-neutral** about *how* to implement the feature. It focuses on *what* the software should do, not the low-level changes to make that happen.

**Example:**

> “Add `set-project-path` to manage project root paths, using env var or config file, with a deprecated fallback to the old walk-up search.”

---

## **2. What is a Task?**

A **task** is our **implementation playbook**. It’s derived from a prompt (or several prompts) but lives closer to the code.

The **task’s job** is to:

* Translate the feature’s desired behavior into **explicit engineering actions**.
* Resolve **ambiguities** from the prompt by making final decisions on scope and approach.
* Provide **step-by-step changes** to code, tests, and documentation.
* Specify **what must be removed, replaced, or refactored**.

Tasks are **prescriptive**, not just descriptive. They tell a developer or agent *exactly what to do next*.

**Example:**

> “Remove the legacy walk-up search entirely. Fail with an error if no env var or config. Update `validate-all` and `harmonize-all` to call `resolve_project_root()`.”

---

## **3. How They Relate**

| Stage                  | Document   | Purpose                                                       | Key Characteristic          |
| ---------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------- |
| **Feature definition** | **Prompt** | Define the desired end state and acceptance criteria          | Describes *what* to build   |
| **Implementation**     | **Task**   | Give explicit steps to achieve that end state in the codebase | Describes *how* to build it |

It’s common for a **task** to **narrow or expand** the scope from the original **prompt**. For example:

* The prompt might allow a deprecated fallback for compatibility.
* The task might decide to remove it immediately for simplicity.

When that happens, the task takes precedence — it’s the final authority for what gets shipped.

---

## **4. Why Both Are Useful**

If we only had prompts:

* We’d know the desired outcome but risk inconsistent implementation approaches.

If we only had tasks:

* We’d have instructions for one implementation, but lose the reusable, high-level specification that future features could reference.

Keeping **both** means we can:

* Preserve a clear history of *why* a feature was designed the way it was.
* Allow implementation plans to adapt over time without rewriting the original intent.

---

## **5. In the Context of AI Agents**

Outside AI, “prompt” often means a short command or cue, and “task” means a generic work item. But in AI agent workflows, these terms are already closer to how we use them:

**Prompt (in AI agents)**

* Often a **goal-level specification** with context, constraints, and expected outputs.
* Can be structured, multi-part, and reusable.
* Matches our `<gsl-prompt>` format exactly.

**Task (in AI agents)**

* An **atomic unit of work** derived from a prompt or plan.
* Expressed in a form that an agent can directly execute.
* Matches our implementation instructions that come after prompt approval.

**Conclusion:** In AI-assisted development, “prompt” → big-picture **what**, “task” → concrete **how**. Our Codex/GSL usage is a direct fit with established agent terminology.

---

## **6. Key Takeaways**

* **Prompt** = *specification*: high-level, end-state, acceptance criteria.
* **Task** = *execution*: detailed, scoped, actionable steps.
* The **prompt** lives longer; the **task** may be disposable after implementation.
* In AI agent contexts, our usage aligns with common definitions: prompts define goals, tasks execute them.
* When the two conflict, the **task’s instructions override the prompt** for that implementation cycle.


---
## 7. Final Thoughts

Separating feature information into prompts and tasks works very well for the overall workflow because it:

* **Separates strategic intent from tactical action** — the prompt sets the “why” and “what,” the task locks in the “how.”
    
* **Keeps a durable, high-level record** — prompts become reusable references, even when the original implementation is replaced.
    
* **Aligns with AI agent planning** — the separation mirrors how agent systems plan (goal spec → execution units).
    
* **Supports flexible decision-making** — you can evolve a task without having to rewrite the historical prompt.
    

It’s essentially giving you **product management discipline** without losing the agility of autonomous or semi-autonomous coding.


---
