What You Want Saying

Line 10 stores an owner and line 11 stores a flag. Line 19 is a function only that owner can reach, line 20 is what keeps everybody else out of it, and line 25 makes every deposit in the file depend on the flag. Six lines, and a whole capability.

Now go back to the sentence: people can deposit tokens. It asks for no owner and no switch, and the file has both, because a request that says nothing about privilege leaves the shape to be picked from everything the model has read. It picks the common one.

Line 30 takes a token and takes nothing else. Line 31 reads the caller's whole entry into a local, line 32 writes zero over that entry, and line 33 sends the lot. There is no amount named anywhere in the four lines and no refusal in them either.

That is a real decision about how the thing behaves, taken in the shape of a parameter that is not there. Decide what it means for somebody holding a balance here before you read another board.

Back to the real board for one step. The strongest single move available when you ask for code is to point at a file: name `IERC20`, name the commit it sits at, and line 41 and line 78 stop being a matter of recollection. A draft either matches them or it does not.

Match this file at this commit is checkable. Make it standard is not. One of them names a text that exists and can be opened by anybody. The other names a feeling about a text, and a great many files feel standard.

This board is not deployed code either and has no upstream. It was written for this lesson as the answer to a second request for the same thing: a vault holding one token for depositors that lets them take it back, announcing each deposit and each withdrawal.

Underneath that came five lines, naming the interface to match, the units and their type, what must revert and with what, what must not be in the file, and what the code may assume. The same shape as the first draft, with every guess settled.

Line 4 imports `IERC20` by name rather than writing a copy of it, so `transfer` and `transferFrom` here carry exactly the signatures the real board declares on lines 41 and 78. Line 12 holds one token and is `immutable`, and lines 17 and 18 are the only place it is ever written.

Neither line is cleverness. Both came out of one sentence of the request: match that interface at that commit, one token, fixed at construction. The first draft had to guess at both, and it guessed differently at both.

Here is withdrawal in the first draft one last time. One argument, and it is the token. The whole entry read on line 31, written to zero on line 32, sent on line 33. Four lines, no amount, no refusal, and nothing announced to anybody watching.

Keep those four lines in your head for exactly one board. The next one is the same operation in the second draft, and what separates them is not style and not length.

Line 28 takes an amount. Line 29 reads what the caller has, line 30 refuses anything larger and carries both numbers out with the refusal, line 31 writes the remainder back where the other draft wrote zero, and lines 32 and 33 send and announce.

Nothing here is more sophisticated than the first draft. It is the same operation with the guesses taken out of it. Name what changed, and name the line of the request that changed it.

Five lines of this draft exist because five lines of the request named something. They are not the same five ideas, and no one of them substitutes for another, so a request that names four and skips one gets a file that decides the fifth quietly.

Tap each of the five lit lines and read which of the five it answers. Then look at the first draft again and notice that all five were still decided there, just not by anybody who was asked.

The whole second draft, lit. It matches an interface that exists at a commit anybody can open, holds one token in units the request fixed, refuses by name, carries no owner and no switch, and writes its one assumption onto line 22 where a reader will meet it.

That is what naming five things bought. Be exact about what it did not buy before you leave the board, because two more checkpoints follow this one and they exist for a reason.

Not a better model and not a longer prompt. Five things named that the first request left for something else to settle: the interface, the units, the refusals, the absences, and what the code may take for granted. Each one was decided either way.

Point at a file whenever you can. A commit and a line number are checkable in a way a word like standard never is. The next checkpoint takes what came back and turns four acts of reading onto it.