Prompt Engineering Applications

Last week, I described four design patterns for AI agentic workflows that I believe will drive significant progress: Reflection, Tool use, Planning and Multi-agent collaboration. Instead of having an LLM generate its final output directly, an agentic workflow prompts the LLM multiple times, giving it opportunities to build step by step to higher-quality output. Here, I'd like to discuss Reflection. It's relatively quick to implement, and I've seen it lead to surprising performance gains. You may have had the experience of prompting ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini, receiving unsatisfactory output, delivering critical feedback to help the LLM improve its response, and then getting a better response. What if you automate the step of delivering critical feedback, so the model automatically criticizes its own output and improves its response? This is the crux of Reflection. Take the task of asking an LLM to write code. We can prompt it to generate the desired code directly to carry out some task X. Then, we can prompt it to reflect on its own output, perhaps as follows: Here’s code intended for task X: [previously generated code] Check the code carefully for correctness, style, and efficiency, and give constructive criticism for how to improve it. Sometimes this causes the LLM to spot problems and come up with constructive suggestions. Next, we can prompt the LLM with context including (i) the previously generated code and (ii) the constructive feedback, and ask it to use the feedback to rewrite the code. This can lead to a better response. Repeating the criticism/rewrite process might yield further improvements. This self-reflection process allows the LLM to spot gaps and improve its output on a variety of tasks including producing code, writing text, and answering questions. And we can go beyond self-reflection by giving the LLM tools that help evaluate its output; for example, running its code through a few unit tests to check whether it generates correct results on test cases or searching the web to double-check text output. Then it can reflect on any errors it found and come up with ideas for improvement. Further, we can implement Reflection using a multi-agent framework. I've found it convenient to create two agents, one prompted to generate good outputs and the other prompted to give constructive criticism of the first agent's output. The resulting discussion between the two agents leads to improved responses. Reflection is a relatively basic type of agentic workflow, but I've been delighted by how much it improved my applications’ results. If you’re interested in learning more about reflection, I recommend: - Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback, by Madaan et al. (2023) - Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning, by Shinn et al. (2023) - CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing, by Gou et al. (2024) [Original text: https://lnkd.in/g4bTuWtU ]

When working with multiple LLM providers, managing prompts, and handling complex data flows — structure isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. A well-organized architecture enables: → Collaboration between ML engineers and developers → Rapid experimentation with reproducibility → Consistent error handling, rate limiting, and logging → Clear separation of configuration (YAML) and logic (code) 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 It’s not just about folder layout — it’s how components interact and scale together: → Centralized configuration using YAML files → A dedicated prompt engineering module with templates and few-shot examples → Properly sandboxed model clients with standardized interfaces → Utilities for caching, observability, and structured logging → Modular handlers for managing API calls and workflows This setup can save teams countless hours in debugging, onboarding, and scaling real-world GenAI systems — whether you're building RAG pipelines, fine-tuning models, or developing agent-based architectures. → What’s your go-to project structure when working with LLMs or Generative AI systems? Let’s share ideas and learn from each other.

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?

Few Lessons from Deploying and Using LLMs in Production Deploying LLMs can feel like hiring a hyperactive genius intern—they dazzle users while potentially draining your API budget. Here are some insights I’ve gathered: 1. “Cheap” is a Lie You Tell Yourself: Cloud costs per call may seem low, but the overall expense of an LLM-based system can skyrocket. Fixes: - Cache repetitive queries: Users ask the same thing at least 100x/day - Gatekeep: Use cheap classifiers (BERT) to filter “easy” requests. Let LLMs handle only the complex 10% and your current systems handle the remaining 90%. - Quantize your models: Shrink LLMs to run on cheaper hardware without massive accuracy drops - Asynchronously build your caches — Pre-generate common responses before they’re requested or gracefully fail the first time a query comes and cache for the next time. 2. Guard Against Model Hallucinations: Sometimes, models express answers with such confidence that distinguishing fact from fiction becomes challenging, even for human reviewers. Fixes: - Use RAG - Just a fancy way of saying to provide your model the knowledge it requires in the prompt itself by querying some database based on semantic matches with the query. - Guardrails: Validate outputs using regex or cross-encoders to establish a clear decision boundary between the query and the LLM’s response. 3. The best LLM is often a discriminative model: You don’t always need a full LLM. Consider knowledge distillation: use a large LLM to label your data and then train a smaller, discriminative model that performs similarly at a much lower cost. 4. It's not about the model, it is about the data on which it is trained: A smaller LLM might struggle with specialized domain data—that’s normal. Fine-tune your model on your specific data set by starting with parameter-efficient methods (like LoRA or Adapters) and using synthetic data generation to bootstrap training. 5. Prompts are the new Features: Prompts are the new features in your system. Version them, run A/B tests, and continuously refine using online experiments. Consider bandit algorithms to automatically promote the best-performing variants. What do you think? Have I missed anything? I’d love to hear your “I survived LLM prod” stories in the comments!

In the last three months alone, over ten papers outlining novel prompting techniques were published, boosting LLMs’ performance by a substantial margin. Two weeks ago, a groundbreaking paper from Microsoft demonstrated how a well-prompted GPT-4 outperforms Google’s Med-PaLM 2, a specialized medical model, solely through sophisticated prompting techniques. Yet, while our X and LinkedIn feeds buzz with ‘secret prompting tips’, a definitive, research-backed guide aggregating these advanced prompting strategies is hard to come by. This gap prevents LLM developers and everyday users from harnessing these novel frameworks to enhance performance and achieve more accurate results. https://lnkd.in/g7_6eP6y In this AI Tidbits Deep Dive, I outline six of the best and recent prompting methods: (1) EmotionPrompt - inspired by human psychology, this method utilizes emotional stimuli in prompts to gain performance enhancements (2) Optimization by PROmpting (OPRO) - a DeepMind innovation that refines prompts automatically, surpassing human-crafted ones. This paper discovered the “Take a deep breath” instruction that improved LLMs’ performance by 9%. (3) Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) - Meta's novel four-step prompting process that drastically reduces hallucinations and improves factual accuracy (4) System 2 Attention (S2A) - also from Meta, a prompting method that filters out irrelevant details prior to querying the LLM (5) Step-Back Prompting - encouraging LLMs to abstract queries for enhanced reasoning (6) Rephrase and Respond (RaR) - UCLA's method that lets LLMs rephrase queries for better comprehension and response accuracy Understanding the spectrum of available prompting strategies and how to apply them in your app can mean the difference between a production-ready app and a nascent project with untapped potential. Full blog post https://lnkd.in/g7_6eP6y

I consider prompting techniques some of the lowest-hanging fruits one can use to achieve step-change improvement with their model performance. This isn’t to say that “typing better instructions” is that simple. As a matter of fact, it can be quite complex. Prompting has evolved into a full discipline with frameworks, reasoning methods, multimodal techniques, and role-based structures that dramatically change how models think, plan, analyse, and create. This guide that breaks down every major prompting category you need to build powerful, reliable, and structured AI workflows: 1️⃣ Core Prompting Techniques The foundational methods include few-shot, zero-shot, one-shot, style prompts. They teach the model patterns, tone, and structure. 2️⃣ Reasoning-Enhancing Techniques Approaches like Chain-of-Thought, Graph-of-Thought, ReAct, and Deliberate prompting help LLMs reason more clearly, avoid shortcuts, and solve complex tasks step-by-step. 3️⃣ Instruction & Role-Based Prompting Define the task clearly or assign the model a “role” such as planner, analyst, engineer, or teacher to get more predictable, domain-focused outputs. 4️⃣ Prompt Composition Techniques Methods like prompt chaining, meta-prompting, dynamic variables, and templates help you build multi-step, modular workflows used in real agent systems. 5️⃣ Tool-Augmented Prompting Combine prompts with vector search, retrieval (RAG), planners, executors, or agent-style instructions to turn LLMs into decision-making systems rather than passive responders. 6️⃣ Optimization & Safety Techniques Guardrails, verification prompts, bias checks, and error-correction prompts improve reliability, factual accuracy, and trustworthiness. These are essential for production systems. 7️⃣ Creativity-Enhancing Techniques Analogy prompts, divergent prompts, story prompts, and spatial diagrams unlock creative reasoning, exploration, and alternative problem-solving paths. 8️⃣ Multimodal Prompting Use images, audio, video, transcripts, diagrams, code, or mixed-media prompts (text + JSON + tables) to build richer and more intelligent multimodal workflows. Modern prompting has fully evolved to designing thinking systems. When you combine reasoning techniques, structured instructions, memory, tools, and multimodal inputs, you unlock a level of performance that avoids costly fine tuning methods. What best practices have you used when designing prompts for your LLM? #LLM

I used to think “prompt engineering” was LinkedIn cosplay. A made-up job title for people riding the AI gold rush with nothing but a pickaxe and a Canva resume. I said—confidently and repeatedly—that prompt engineering wasn’t a real profession. That LLMs would soon be smart enough to understand what you meant, not what you typed. That the whole thing was a short-lived hustle. I was wrong. What I dismissed as a gimmick has turned out to be a craft. Prompting matters. More than I expected. Sometimes more than fine-tuning. Sometimes more than model choice. Because here’s the truth: 💡 Prompting is differentiation. A well-designed prompt can yield 10x better results. It’s not a party trick—it’s strategic scaffolding. 💡General-purpose models can outperform fine-tuned ones—if prompted right. Smart prompting + inventive engineering unlocks more than I gave it credit for. 💡Fine-tuning is expensive. Prompting is scrappy. It gives you leverage without the MLOps overhead. 💡Context matters. Strategic prompts that include examples, constraints, clear objectives, and instructions lead to results that are 100X more effective than terse prompts that fail to paint the target. A philosophy teacher of mine, when critiqued and confronted by a position he once held, would say with a twinkle in his eye, “No, you’re mistaken, my former self was of that view.” So, copping his line here, my former self was dead wrong. My current self understands the value still to be extracted from intelligent prompting in AI.

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. ♻️

If you’re an AI engineer, product builder, or researcher- understanding how to specialize LLMs for domain-specific tasks is no longer optional. As foundation models grow more capable, the real differentiator will be: how well can you tailor them to your domain, use case, or user? Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the 3-tiered landscape of Domain Specialization of LLMs. 1️⃣ External Augmentation (Black Box) No changes to the model weights, just enhancing what the model sees or does. → Domain Knowledge Augmentation Explicit: Feeding domain-rich documents (e.g. PDFs, policies, manuals) through RAG pipelines. Implicit: Allowing the LLM to infer domain norms from previous corpora without direct supervision. → Domain Tool Augmentation LLMs call tools: Use function calling or MCP to let LLMs fetch real-time domain data (e.g. stock prices, medical info). LLMs embodied in tools: Think of copilots embedded within design, coding, or analytics tools. Here, LLMs become a domain-native interface. 2️⃣ Prompt Crafting (Grey Box) We don’t change the model, but we engineer how we interact with it. → Discrete Prompting Zero-shot: The model generates without seeing examples. Few-shot: Handpicked examples are given inline. → Continuous Prompting Task-dependent: Prompts optimized per task (e.g. summarization vs. classification). Instance-dependent: Prompts tuned per input using techniques like Prefix-tuning or in-context gradient descent. 3️⃣ Model Fine-tuning (White Box) This is where the real domain injection happens, modifying weights. → Adapter-based Fine-tuning Neutral Adapters: Plug-in layers trained separately to inject new knowledge. Low-Rank Adapters (LoRA): Efficient parameter updates with minimal compute cost. Integrated Frameworks: Architectures that support multiple adapters across tasks and domains. → Task-oriented Fine-tuning Instruction-based: Datasets like FLAN or Self-Instruct used to tune the model for task following. Partial Knowledge Update: Selective weight updates focused on new domain knowledge without catastrophic forgetting. My two cents as someone building AI tools and advising enterprises: 🫰 Choosing the right specialization method isn’t just about performance, it’s about control, cost, and context. 🫰 If you’re in high-risk or regulated industries, white-box fine-tuning gives you interpretability and auditability. 🫰 If you’re shipping fast or dealing with changing data, black-box RAG and tool-augmentation might be more agile. 🫰 And if you’re stuck in between? Prompt engineering can give you 80% of the result with 20% of the effort. Save this for later if you’re designing domain-aware AI systems. Follow me (Aishwarya Srinivasan) for more AI insights!

In just a few minutes, here’s one thing you can do to make AI outputs 10x sharper. One of the most common reasons that prompts fail is not because they are too long, but because they lack personal context. And the fastest fix is to dictate your context. Speak for five to ten minutes about the problem, your audience, and the outcome you want, then paste the transcript into your prompt. Next, add your intent and your boundaries in plain language. For example: “I want to advocate for personal healthcare. Keep the tone empowering, not invasive. Do not encourage oversharing. Help people feel supported in the doctor’s office without implying that all responsibility sits on them.” Lastly, tell the model exactly what to produce. You might say: “Draft the first 400 words, include a clear call to action, and give me three title options.” Here’s a mini template: → State who you are and who this is for → Describe your stance and what to emphasize → Add guardrails for tone, privacy, and any “don’ts” → Set constraints like length, format, and voice → Specify the deliverable you want next Until AI memory reliably holds your details, you are responsible for supplying them. Feed the model your story - no need to include PII - to turn generic responses into work that sounds like you.