> The instruction prompt is absolutely relevant

By "prompt" I was referring to the prompting of the user, by a program such as `sdkmanager --licenses`.

If a user explicitly prompted an LLM agent to "accept all licenses", then I'd agree with you.

> Which it can...

It can be held out as a legal agent, sure. But in this case, is it? Is the coding agent somehow advertising itself to the sdkmanager program and/or Google that it has the authority to form legal contracts on behalf of its user?

> I've counseled you already to study the law - go do that before we discuss this further

While this is a reasonable ask for continuing the line of discussion, I'd say it's a lot of effort for a message board comment. So I won't be doing this, at least to the level of being able to intelligently respond here.

Instead I would ask you what you would say are the minimum requirements to be able to have an LLM coding agent executing commands on your own machine, yet explicitly not having the authority to form legally binding contracts.

(obviously I'm not asking this in the capacity of binding legal advice. and obviously one would still be responsible for any damage said process caused)