Expert guide on prompt engineering patterns, best practices, and optimization techniques. Use when user wants to improve prompts, learn prompting strategies, or debug agent behavior.
Advanced prompt engineering techniques to maximize LLM performance, reliability, and controllability.
Teach the model by showing examples instead of explaining rules. Include 2-5 input-output pairs that demonstrate the desired behavior. Use when you need consistent formatting, specific reasoning patterns, or handling of edge cases. More examples improve accuracy but consume tokens—balance based on task complexity.
Example:
Extract key information from support tickets:
Input: "My login doesn't work and I keep getting error 403"
Output: {"issue": "authentication", "error_code": "403", "priority": "high"}
Input: "Feature request: add dark mode to settings"
Output: {"issue": "feature_request", "error_code": null, "priority": "low"}
Now process: "Can't upload files larger than 10MB, getting timeout"
Request step-by-step reasoning before the final answer. Add "Let's think step by step" (zero-shot) or include example reasoning traces (few-shot). Use for complex problems requiring multi-step logic, mathematical reasoning, or when you need to verify the model's thought process. Improves accuracy on analytical tasks by 30-50%.
Example:
Analyze this bug report and determine root cause.
Think step by step:
1. What is the expected behavior?
2. What is the actual behavior?
3. What changed recently that could cause this?
4. What components are involved?
5. What is the most likely root cause?
Bug: "Users can't save drafts after the cache update deployed yesterday"
Systematically improve prompts through testing and refinement. Start simple, measure performance (accuracy, consistency, token usage), then iterate. Test on diverse inputs including edge cases. Use A/B testing to compare variations. Critical for production prompts where consistency and cost matter.
Example:
Version 1 (Simple): "Summarize this article"
→ Result: Inconsistent length, misses key points
Version 2 (Add constraints): "Summarize in 3 bullet points"
→ Result: Better structure, but still misses nuance
Version 3 (Add reasoning): "Identify the 3 main findings, then summarize each"
→ Result: Consistent, accurate, captures key information
Build reusable prompt structures with variables, conditional sections, and modular components. Use for multi-turn conversations, role-based interactions, or when the same pattern applies to different inputs. Reduces duplication and ensures consistency across similar tasks.
Example:
# Reusable code review template
template = """
Review this {language} code for {focus_area}.
Code:
{code_block}
Provide feedback on:
{checklist}
"""
# Usage
prompt = template.format(
language="Python",
focus_area="security vulnerabilities",
code_block=user_code,
checklist="1. SQL injection\n2. XSS risks\n3. Authentication"
)
Set global behavior and constraints that persist across the conversation. Define the model's role, expertise level, output format, and safety guidelines. Use system prompts for stable instructions that shouldn't change turn-to-turn, freeing up user message tokens for variable content.
Example:
System: You are a senior backend engineer specializing in API design.
Rules:
- Always consider scalability and performance
- Suggest RESTful patterns by default
- Flag security concerns immediately
- Provide code examples in Python
- Use early return pattern
Format responses as:
1. Analysis
2. Recommendation
3. Code example
4. Trade-offs
Start with simple prompts, add complexity only when needed:
Level 1: Direct instruction
Level 2: Add constraints
Level 3: Add reasoning
Level 4: Add examples
[System Context] → [Task Instruction] → [Examples] → [Input Data] → [Output Format]
Build prompts that gracefully handle failures:
