The correct options are Enable Git Large File Storage for oversized assets, Create a README file to explain the project, and Prefer working in branches instead of forks.

This choice keeps large binaries out of the Git history by storing lightweight pointers while the actual files live in a specialized storage. It reduces repository size and speeds up cloning and fetching, and it prevents the history from ballooning when large assets change frequently.

A README explains the project purpose, setup, usage, and contribution guidelines so newcomers can onboard quickly and follow consistent practices. It becomes the single entry point for context and helps maintain clarity as the repository evolves.

This workflow keeps work inside the same repository which simplifies permissions, keeps continuous integration and required checks centralized, and makes it easy to open pull requests for review. It encourages small, focused changes that are straightforward to test and merge.

Delete commit history to shrink the repository is not a healthy practice because it destroys traceability and can disrupt collaborators who have existing clones. It also fails to address the real source of bloat when large binaries are committed, which is better handled with Git Large File Storage.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question