AI Prompt Improvement

I’ve noticed that many GenAI application projects put in automated evaluations (evals) of the system’s output probably later — and rely on humans to manually examine and judge outputs longer — than they should. This is because building evals is viewed as a massive investment (say, creating 100 or 1,000 examples, and designing and validating metrics) and there’s never a convenient moment to put in that up-front cost. Instead, I encourage teams to think of building evals as an iterative process. It’s okay to start with a quick-and-dirty implementation (say, 5 examples with unoptimized metrics) and then iterate and improve over time. This allows you to gradually shift the burden of evaluations away from humans and toward automated evals. I wrote previously in The Batch about the importance and difficulty of creating evals. Say you’re building a customer-service chatbot that responds to users in free text. There’s no single right answer, so many teams end up having humans pore over dozens of example outputs with every update to judge if it improved the system. While techniques like LLM-as-judge are helpful, the details of getting this to work well (such as what prompt to use, what context to give the judge, and so on) are finicky to get right. All this contributes to the impression that building evals requires a large up-front investment, and thus on any given day, a team can make more progress by relying on human judges than figuring out how to build automated evals. I encourage you to approach building evals differently. It’s okay to build quick evals that are only partial, incomplete, and noisy measures of the system’s performance, and to iteratively improve them. They can be a complement to, rather than replacement for, manual evaluations. Over time, you can gradually tune the evaluation methodology to close the gap between the evals’ output and human judgments. For example: - It’s okay to start with very few examples in the eval set, say 5, and gradually add to them over time — or subtract them if you find that some examples are too easy or too hard, and not useful for distinguishing between the performance of different versions of your system. - It’s okay to start with evals that measure only a subset of the dimensions of performance you care about, or measure narrow cues that you believe are correlated with, but don’t fully capture, system performance. For example if, at a certain moment in the conversation, your customer-support agent is supposed to (i) call an API to issue a refund and (ii) generate an appropriate message to the user, you might start off measuring only whether or not it calls the API correctly and not worry about the message. Or if, at a certain moment, your chatbot should recommend a specific product, a basic eval could measure whether or not the chatbot mentions that product without worrying about what it says about it. [Truncated due to length limit. Full text: https://lnkd.in/gygj3y7w ]

Prompt engineering is the new consulting superpower. Most haven't realized it yet. Over the last couple of days, I reviewed the latest guides by Google, Anthropic and OpenAI. Some of the key recommendations to improve output: → Being very specific about expertise levels requested → Using structured instructions or meta prompts → Explicitly referencing project documents in the prompt → Asking the model to "think step by step" Based on the guides, here are four ways to immediately level up your prompting skill set as a consultant: 1. Define the expert persona precisely "You're a specialist with 15 years in retail supply chain optimization who has worked with Target and Walmart." Why it matters: The model draws from deeper technical patterns, not just general concepts. 2. Structure the deliverable explicitly "Provide 3 key insights, their implications and then support each with data-driven evidence." Why it matters: This gives me structured material that needs minimal editing. 3. Set distinctive success parameters "Focus on operational inefficiencies that competitors typically overlook." Why it matters: You push the model beyond obvious answers to genuine competitive insights. 4. Establish the decision context "This is for a CEO with a risk-averse investor applying pressure to improve their gross margins." Why it matters: The recommendations align with stakeholder realities and urgency. The above were the main takeaways I took from the guides which I found helpful. When you run these prompts versus generic statements, you will see a massive difference in quality and relevance. Bonus tips which are working for me: → Create prompt templates using the four elements → Test different expert personas against the same problem (I regularly use "Senior McKinsey partner" to counter my position detecting gaps in my thinking.) → Ask the model to identify contradictions or gaps in the data before finalizing any recommendations. We’re only scratching the surface of what these “intelligence partners” can offer. Getting better at prompting may be one of the most asymmetric skill opportunities all of us have today. Share your favourite prompting tip below! P.S Was this post helpful? Should I share one post per week on how I’m improving my AI-related skills?

STOP asking ChatGPT to "make it better". Here's how to better prompt it instead: ☑ Clearly Identify the Issue Rather than a vague “make it better,” specify the exact element that needs change. For example: "Rewrite the second paragraph so it includes three concrete examples of our product’s benefits. The tone must be formal and persuasive. Remove any informal language or redundant phrases." ☑ Divide the Task into Discrete Steps Break the overall revision into a sequence of manageable tasks. For example: "Go through my instructions, step by step. – Step 1: Summarize it in one sentence. – Step 2: Identify two specific weaknesses. – Step 3: Rewrite the text to address these weaknesses, incorporating specific data or examples." ☑ Specify the Format and Level of Detail Define exactly how the final output should look. For example: "Provide the final revised text as a numbered list where each item contains 2–3 sentences. Each item must include at least one statistical fact or concrete example, and the overall response should not exceed 250 words." ☑ Request a Chain-of-Thought Explanation Ask the model to detail its reasoning process before giving the final output. For example: "Before providing the final revised text, explain your reasoning step-by-step. Identify which parts need improvement and how your changes will enhance clarity and professionalism. Then, present the final revised version." ☑ Conditional Instructions to Enforce Compliance Add if/then conditions to ensure all requirements are met. For example: "If the revised text does not include at least two concrete examples, then add a sentence with a real-world statistic. Otherwise, finalize the response as is." ☑ Consolidate All Instructions into One Prompt Integrate all the detailed instructions into a single, comprehensive prompt. For example: "First, identify the section of the text that needs improvement and explain why it is lacking. Next, summarize the current text in one sentence and list two specific weaknesses. Then, rewrite the text to address these weaknesses, ensuring the revised version includes three concrete examples, uses a formal and persuasive tone, and is structured as a numbered list with each item containing 2–3 sentences. Each list item must include at least one statistical fact or example, and the overall response must be no longer than 250 words. Before providing the final text, explain your reasoning step-by-step. If the revised text does not include at least two concrete examples, add an additional sentence with a real-world statistic." ___ Why This Works People never give enough context. And once ChatGPT answers, they never correct it enough. Think about it like an intern. Deep prompting is all about precision: give clear instructions, context & the right corrections. PS: Don't forget to use the new o3-mini model. It's crushing any other one. Yes – even DeepSeek.

Prompt formatting can have a dramatic impact on LLM performance, but it varies substantially across models. Some pragmatic findings from a recent research paper: 💡 Prompt Format Significantly Affects LLM Performance. Different prompt formats (plain text, Markdown, YAML, JSON) can result in performance variations of up to 40%, depending on the task and model. For instance, GPT-3.5-turbo showed a dramatic performance shift between Markdown and JSON in code translation tasks, while GPT-4 exhibited greater stability. This indicates the importance of testing and optimizing prompts for specific tasks and models. 🛠️ Tailor Formats to Task and Model. Prompt formats like JSON, Markdown, YAML, and plain text yield different performance outcomes across tasks. For instance, GPT-3.5-turbo performed 40% better in JSON for code tasks, while GPT-4 preferred Markdown for reasoning tasks. Test multiple formats early in your process to identify which structure maximizes results for your specific task and model. 📋 Keep Instructions and Context Explicit. Include clear task instructions, persona descriptions, and examples in your prompts. For example, specifying roles (“You are a Python coder”) and output style (“Respond in JSON”) improves model understanding. Consistency in how you frame the task across different formats minimizes confusion and enhances reliability. 📊 Choose Format Based on Data Complexity. For simple tasks, plain text or Markdown often suffices. For structured outputs like programming or translations, formats such as JSON or YAML may perform better. Align the prompt format with the complexity of the expected response to leverage the model’s capabilities fully. 🔄 Iterate and Validate Performance. Run tests with variations in prompt structure to measure impact. Tools like Coefficient of Mean Deviation (CMD) or Intersection-over-Union (IoU) can help quantify performance differences. Start with benchmarks like MMLU or HumanEval to validate consistency and accuracy before deploying at scale. 🚀 Leverage Larger Models for Stability. If working with sensitive tasks requiring consistent outputs, opt for larger models like GPT-4, which show better robustness to format changes. For instance, GPT-4 maintained higher performance consistency across benchmarks compared to GPT-3.5. Link to paper in comments.

If you're using AI agents just to speed things up, you're missing their real value. Working with agents isn’t about shortcuts. It’s about designing collaborative systems that think with you. And this is how it should work: → Start with context Before you ask for outputs, define your goals, your audience, and the “why” behind your initiative. Agents perform best when they understand the bigger picture. → Design the workflow together Map out how agents and humans will interact. Who leads what? What tools are involved? What feedback loops do you need? → Only then, begin prompting This is where most teams start. But if you haven’t aligned on strategy, you’ll get fragmented results. At Mchange, we learned this the hands-on way. We had no background in marketing or content creation. But our AI agent team helped us build a content workflow from the ground up. It looks like this: → We set the mission: who we want to reach and why → We share that with our agents, often including docs, data, and vision → Together, we design the content flow and assign agent roles →Only then do we prompt for drafts, visuals, and distribution plans And the best part, The more we share up front, the more strategic and creative our outputs become. AI doesn’t just support our process, it teaches us how to improve it. Because when agents understand why something matters, they help you figure out how to make it matter more. That’s the real shift. AI inot as a tool, but as a thinking partner in your system. If you want deeper insights into how agent–human collaboration should look like DM me or book a call on our website. And remember, create value, not hype.

Most people don’t realize: AI can coach you on how to prompt it better. Here’s how to turn AI into your personal prompt coach, so you get better results and learn how to use AI faster. Try this two-step fix: 1. State your goal and context. 2. Ask one of these questions: ➡️ "How would you rewrite my prompt to get more [specific, creative, detailed, etc.] responses?" ➡️ "If you were trying to get [desired outcome], how would you modify this prompt?" ➡️ "If this were your prompt, what would you change to make it more effective?" ➡️ "What elements are missing from my prompt that would help you generate better responses?" ➡️ "How might you enhance this prompt to avoid common pitfalls or misinterpretations?" ➡️ Or simply: "Improve my prompt." Before: "Explain force majeure clauses." After: "Analyze how courts in California have interpreted force majeure clauses in commercial leases since COVID-19, focusing on what constitutes 'unforeseeable circumstances' and the burden of proof required to invoke these provisions." The difference? A broad, non-jx specific, superficial overview vs. actionable legal insights for commercial leases in California. Not only will you get better outcomes, but you will learn how to improve your prompting in the process. What are your go-to strategies or favorite prompts to optimize AI responses?

A few months ago, a colleague screamed at Microsoft Copilot like he was auditioning for Bring Me The Horizon. He typed, “Make this into a presentation.” Copilot spat out something. He yelled, “NO, I SAID PROFESSIONAL!” It revised it. Still wrong. “WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID?” And that, dear reader, is when it hit me. It’s not the AI. It’s you. Or rather, your prompts. So, if you've ever felt like ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, or any of those AI Agents are more "artificial" than "intelligent"? Then rethink how you’re talking to them. Here are 10 prompt engineering fundamentals that’ll stop you from sounding like you're yelling into the void. 1. Lead with Intent. Start with a clear command: “You are an expert…,” “Generate a monthly report…,” “Translate this to French…" This orients the model instantly. 2. Scope & Constraints First. Define boundaries up front. Length limits, style guides, data sources, even forbidden terms. 3. Format Your Output. Specify JSON schema, markdown headers, or table columns. Models love explicit structure over free form prose. 4. Provide Minimal, High Quality Examples. Two or three exemplar Q→A pairs beat a paragraph of explanation every time. 5. Isolate Subtasks. Break complex workflows into discrete prompts (chain of thought). One prompt per action: analyze, summarize, critique, then assemble. 6. Anchor with Delimiters. Use triple backticks or XML tags to fence inputs. Cuts hallucinations in half. 7. Inject Domain Signals. Name specific frameworks (“Use SWOT analysis,” “Apply the Eisenhower Matrix,” “Leverage Porter’s Five Forces”) to nudge depth. 8. Iterate Rapidly. Version your prompts like code. A/B test variations, track which phrasing yields the cleanest output. 9. Tune the “Why.” Always ask for reasoning steps. Always. 10. Template & Automate. Build parameterized prompt templates in your repo. Still with me? Good. Bonus tips. 1. Token Economy Awareness. Place critical context in the first 200 tokens. Anything beyond 1,500 risks context drift. 2. Temperature vs. Prompt Depth. Higher temperature amplifies creativity. Only if your prompt is concise. Otherwise you get noise. 3. Use “Chain of Questions.” Instead of one long prompt, fire sequential, linked questions. You’ll maintain context and sharpen focus. 4. Mirror the LLM’s Own Language. Scan model outputs for phrasing patterns and reflect those idioms back in your prompts. 5. Treat Prompts as Living Docs. Embed metrics in comments: note output quality, error rates, hallucination frequency. Keep iterating until ROI justifies the effort. And finally, the bit no one wants to hear. You get better at using AI by using AI. Practice like you’re training a dragon. Eventually, it listens. And when it does, it’s magic. You now know more about prompt engineering than 98% of LinkedIn. Which means you should probably repost this. Just saying. ♻️

Unlock the potential of Generative AI to enhance your writing, creativity, and coding skills through prompt engineering. Prompt engineering is a key skill that involves crafting detailed, structured inputs to guide AI towards generating precise, useful outputs. Here are the core strategies to master: - Guide Precisely: Provide detailed instructions for clear, targeted outcomes. - Rich Context: Supply comprehensive background information for more accurate and relevant responses. - Experiment: Start with the basics, then explore more complex requests as you become more comfortable. Improve your AI interactions with these tips: 1. Specificity and Iterations: Craft detailed prompts and refine based on the AI's feedback. 2. Contextual Depth: The more context you provide, the better the AI understands your request, leading to more tailored outputs. 3. Multi-Modal Inputs: Beyond text, incorporate images, code, or data for varied and rich outputs. 4. Example Use: Include examples of what you're aiming for and what you want to avoid to guide the AI more effectively. 5. Advanced Features: Tweak settings like creativity level and response length to get the results you need. 6. Unique Capabilities: Utilize the AI's broad knowledge and support for specific tasks, such as coding assistance. ✍️ Suppose you want to learn a new skill. Here's a prompt template incorporating the above principles: 'I'm eager to learn [Skill Name], aiming to use it for [specific purpose or project]. My background is in [Your Background], and my experience with similar skills is [Your Experience Level]. I aim to build a foundational understanding and complete my first project within [Timeframe]. Could you provide a structured learning path that includes: The key concepts and fundamentals of [Skill Name] I should focus on. Recommendations for online courses, tutorials, and books suitable for beginners. Practical exercises or projects for applying what I learn. Tips for staying motivated and overcoming challenges. Strategies for applying [Skill Name] in real-world situations or job opportunities.' This approach ensures a personalized, goal-oriented learning strategy, leveraging AI's capabilities to support your journey in mastering a new skill. #generativeai #ai #promptengineering #upskill #learning

I recently went through the Prompt Engineering guide by Lee Boonstra from Google, and it offers valuable, practical insights. It confirms that getting the best results from LLMs is an iterative engineering process, not just casual conversation. Here are some key takeaways I found particularly impactful: 1. 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬: Effective prompting goes beyond the text input. Configuring model parameters like Temperature (for creativity vs. determinism), Top-K/Top-P (for sampling control), and Output Length is crucial for tailoring the response to your specific needs. 2. 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬: Zero-shot, One-shot, and Few-shot prompting aren't just academic terms. Providing clear examples within your prompt is one of the most powerful ways to guide the LLM on desired output format, style, and structure, especially for tasks like classification or structured data generation (e.g., JSON). 3. 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: Techniques like Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting – asking the model to 'think step-by-step' – significantly improve performance on complex tasks requiring reasoning (logic, math). Similarly, Step-back prompting (considering general principles first) enhances robustness. 4. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: Explicitly defining the System's overall purpose, providing relevant Context, or assigning a specific Role (e.g., "Act as a senior software architect reviewing this code") dramatically shapes the relevance and tone of the output. 5. 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞: The guide highlights practical applications for developers, including generating code snippets, explaining complex codebases, translating between languages, and even debugging/reviewing code – potential productivity boosters. 6. 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐲: Specificity: Clearly define the desired output. Ambiguity leads to generic results. Instructions > Constraints: Focus on telling the model what to do rather than just what not to do. Iteration & Documentation: This is critical. Documenting prompt versions, configurations, and outcomes (using a structured template, like the one suggested) is essential for learning, debugging, and reproducing results. Understanding these techniques allows us to move beyond basic interactions and truly leverage the power of LLMs. What are your go-to prompt engineering techniques or best practices? Let's discuss! #PromptEngineering #AI #LLM

Shallow Prompt = Shallow Results. A well-structured Deep Research prompt will save you quite some time and also yield better results. Such a prompt includes key elements like: 1. Goal or objective: define exactly what you want to uncover. 2. Context & background: set boundaries like timeframe, geography, or market focus. 3. Role & tone: assign expertise (e.g., “You are a strategy consultant with 20 years of experience”). 4. Methodology: ask for comparisons, analysis, synthesis & specify credible sources. 5. Output format: structure results into insights, recommendations, and next steps. 6. Depth & evaluation: go beyond facts to identify patterns, contradictions & implications. It also includes best practices: 1. Start simple, refine iteratively, and upgrade to advanced models for final analysis. 2. Use multi-step or meta-prompts to handle complex topics. 3. Adapt structure to the task, while reusing proven templates for consistency 4. Clear instructions create evidence-based research tailored to your audience and strategy. The next time you need market analysis, competitor benchmarking, or policy insights, start with a prompt that defines scope, assigns a role, and demands structured output. How are you designing prompts today to get deeper, more reliable research?