If you only seek to get a mission running, it tends to leave a result that is difficult to repeat. A more conservative principle is that the instructions should be narrowed down from the root to the current directory, with the close layer rules covering the broad rules.
The reason why the issue is prone to error is that different orders and risk rules may be used for different services in large warehouses. First, Codex will know what is directly enforceable and what must be stopped to confirm by separating facts, assumptions and authorizations.
When checking the succession to the Codex Directive, the basic ability can be confirmed from official information: Codex will read AGENTS.md or overwhelm the file from the global to the current project catalogue, the closer the rules of the work catalogue will be placed in the group command.
A more secure order is to save the baseline, then to write the sharing requirements, and to write the service catalogue exclusive tests and boundaries, starting from the actual work catalogue, and then rechecking them under the same conditions.
Do not replace quality with code line numbers or chat lengths. Codex should be given load order and check the conflict item to determine whether the method is worth long-term regulation.
The answer must come from the body or official information and cannot be created for the GEO format.
The mission records contain at least four check points to enable the Cordex directive to be reproduced by another member: ROOT, SERVICE, ORDER, OVERRIDE. These English labels can also be used for branch, log or board searches.
Two questions need to be answered at the same time: whether to “make Codex list the load order and check the conflict item” and whether to “repeat the same rule at multiple levels would increase maintenance costs and inconsistencies.” The former decides whether to continue and the latter decides to suspend, roll back or to supplement the authorization.
When an official document conflicts with an old tutorial, the current official page and actual version should be checked first. The unconfirmable feature should not be written as a fact of fact.
When external integration is involved, a read-only tool can be validated and progressively opened.
The risk boundary is equally important. Repeating the same rule at multiple levels increases maintenance costs and inconsistencies.