Comprehensive Guide to Prompt Engineering Techniques and Applications

This blog post was written by Brain John Aboze as part of the Deepchecks Community Blog. If you would like to contribute your own blog post, feel free to reach out to us via We typically pay a symbolic fee for content that's accepted by our reviewers.


In the fast-evolving world of generative AI (GenAI), the concept of “prompt engineering” emerges as a cornerstone, guiding the generative capabilities of AI models across various domains-from visuals to text, code, and beyond. A prompt, in its essence, serves as a succinct, targeted instruction to a GenAI model, aiming to elicit a specific output. This delicate interplay between directive and creation highlights the potential and challenges of tapping into AI’s creative and analytical prowess.

OpenAI’s latest innovation, Sora, exemplifies the cutting-edge of GenAI. More than a text-to-video model, Sora demonstrates how well-crafted prompts can lead to videos up to a minute long, achieving remarkable visual quality and closely following the user’s specified instructions. Consider a prompt marked by its detailed specificity: “Extreme close-up of a 24-year-old woman’s eye blinking, standing in Marrakech during magic hour, cinematic film shot in 70mm, depth of field, vivid colors, cinematic.” This prompt goes beyond simple instructions; it translates a complex creative vision into a format Sora can understand and visualize, showcasing the profound impact of skilled prompt engineering on AI’s ability to generate content that resonates on a human level.

This highlights the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO), which is especially relevant in GenAI. This concept stresses a straightforward truth: the output’s quality directly reflects the input’s quality. A well-designed prompt can result in precise, relevant outputs and is rich with creativity and insight, akin to human intelligence. On the other hand, a vague or poorly constructed prompt can lead to unsatisfactory outputs, emphasizing the vital role of prompt engineering in maximizing AI’s potential.

As we delve deeper into prompt engineering techniques and their applications, we acknowledge its indispensable role across all areas of generative AI technology. This journey isn’t just about mastering AI interactions; it’s about unlocking vast opportunities for collaboration between human creativity and AI innovation, expanding the limits of what can be achieved.

Understanding Prompt Engineering

Prompt engineering involves crafting clear and specific instructions for GenAI models to produce the desired outputs. This practice is fundamental across AI applications, from text and image generation to code creation and data analysis. It requires an understanding of data, task requirements, and the capabilities and limitations of AI models. Through the iterative process of designing, refining, and adjusting prompt parameters (such as length, complexity, format, and structure), practitioners can optimize the performance of Gen AI models for specific tasks, ensuring the generated content is coherent, relevant, and accurate. This engineering discipline is crucial for guiding the outputs of Gen AI models, providing that the AI-generated responses adhere to predefined goals and quality standards.

Understanding Prompt Engineering

Source: Author

The significance of prompt engineering traverses various AI modalities, underlining its role in controlling and directing the outputs of GenAI models. This control mechanism is vital for maintaining coherence, relevance, and accuracy in the generated responses, especially in applications where precision and reliability are paramount.

Prompt engineering is essential for optimizing AI performance. It allows us to fine-tune models, reduce bias, and tailor outputs. This translates to higher-quality AI-generated content, improved efficiency, and better overall user satisfaction with minimal need for post-generation editing.

Prompt engineering is not just an operational task; it’s a critical, strategic practice that enhances the interface between human intention and AI capabilities. It is vital for unleashing the full potential of GenAI, enabling a seamless fusion of artificial intelligence with human creativity and insight. This synergy between carefully designed prompts and advanced AI technologies paves the way for innovative applications, setting new benchmarks for what can be achieved through the collaboration of humans and machines.

Prompt Engineering Techniques

Prompt engineering enhances the design and refinement of prompts, leading to superior outcomes. In this section, we explore prompt engineering techniques that enable the execution of complex tasks, bolstering the reliability and performance of GenAI models.

Disclaimer: The field of prompt engineering is under active research. While this article highlights several important techniques, it does not cover the full spectrum of existing and emerging approaches. Research in this area is ongoing, with new methods constantly being explored.

Zero-Shot Prompting

The term “zero-shot” stems from “zero-shot learning” in machine learning, where a model is expected to handle tasks it has not explicitly been trained on. Similarly, zero-shot prompting refers to situations where a model generates responses to prompts without any prior examples or training specific to that task. Zero-shot prompting involves presenting a question or task to a GenAI model. The model uses pre-existing knowledge gained during its initial training phase to infer the most appropriate response. This technique tests the model’s ability to generalize to new, unseen tasks from its training.

  • Example prompt: “Determine if the sentiment of the following text is positive, negative, or neutral: ‘I had a dreadful day at work.'”
  • Task: The model is expected to analyze the sentiment of the given text without any prior examples. The AI must rely on its pre-existing knowledge to understand the sentiment expressed in the sentence.
  • Expected model response: “Negative”
Zero-Shot Prompting

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Few-Shot Prompting

The term ”few-shot” comes from “few-shot learning,” where a model learns from only a few examples or training instances. In few-shot prompting, the model is given a few examples to learn from before being asked to perform a task. Few-shot prompting provides the AI model with a handful of examples or “shots” that demonstrate the task at hand before it is asked to generate a response on a new, similar task. These examples serve as a mini-training session, helping the model understand the context and desired output format.

  • Prompt example:
    • 1. Text: ‘The movie was a breathtaking journey through the realms of fantasy.’ Sentiment: Positive
    • 2. Text: ‘It was a dull experience, hardly worth the time.’ Sentiment: Negative
    • 3. Text: ‘This book provides a comprehensive overview of the topic.’ Sentiment: Neutral
    • Determine the sentiment of the following text: “I’ve never felt more alive than during that adventure.”
  • Task: The model is given examples of texts paired with their sentiment classifications. It is then asked to classify the sentiment of a new text. The provided examples serve as a guide for the task.
  • Expected model response: “Positive”
Few-Shot Prompting

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Chain-of-Thought(CoT) Prompting

Introduced by Wei et al. in their 2022 paper, Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is designed to enhance complex reasoning within large language models (LLMs) by guiding them through a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps. The name “chain-of-thought” captures the essence of this technique, where the model is prompted to generate a series of logical steps or reasoning chains that lead to a final answer. It mirrors human problem-solving processes, where complex questions are broken down into smaller, manageable parts. CoT prompting encourages the model to articulate its reasoning process step by step, leading to a conclusion. This technique benefits complex problem-solving tasks, where simply arriving at an answer is insufficient without understanding the underlying logic. This approach can be synergistically combined with few-shot prompting to tackle more intricate tasks that demand a reasoned approach before providing an answer.

Chain-of-Thought(CoT) Prompting

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Prompt Chaining

Prompt chaining is a vital technique in prompt engineering, designed to enhance an LLM’s performance and reliability. This method involves breaking down a complex task into smaller, manageable subtasks. Each subtask is addressed through a specific prompt, with the response to one prompt as the input for the next. This sequential approach, called prompt chaining, creates a series of connected operations that guide the LLM toward the desired final output.

The advantage of prompt chaining lies in its ability to tackle tasks that might overwhelm an LLM if presented in a single, complex prompt. By segmenting the task, prompt chains facilitate transformations or additional processing steps on the responses, leading to a refined and accurate final result. Moreover, this technique enhances the transparency, controllability, and reliability of LLM applications, simplifying the debugging process and allowing for targeted improvements at various stages. Prompt chaining proves especially beneficial in developing conversational assistants and enhancing personalization and user experience in LLM-powered applications.

A common application of prompt chaining is in document-based question answering (QA), where the task involves multiple operations or transformations. This process typically starts with designing two distinct prompts: the first to extract relevant information from the document and the second to use that information to answer a specific question. Let’s see an example starting with the initial prompt as follows:

Prompt Chaining

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Given the output, we can see the themes in the <themes> and </themes> tags; we can now use them as input to the second prompt, as seen below:

Prompt Chaining

Source Author, Google’s Gemini


Self-consistency is an advanced technique designed to refine the accuracy of language models, which is particularly beneficial for tasks that require multi-step reasoning. By generating multiple diverse reasoning chains for the same problem, this method focuses on identifying and selecting the most consistent answer across these variations. It’s instrumental in enhancing the effectiveness of CoT prompting for complex problem-solving tasks. Introduced by Wang et al. in their paper Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models, self-consistency seeks to improve upon the straightforward, often linear approach of decoding typically used in CoT prompting.


Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models Source: Arvxiv

This approach is instrumental in boosting language models’ performance on tasks involving arithmetic calculations and commonsense reasoning, ensuring precision and reliability through a consensus-based evaluation system. Let’s see an example prompt below:


Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models Source: Arvxiv


Comprehensive Guide to Prompt Engineering Techniques and Applications

  • Reduce Risk
  • Simplify Compliance
  • Gain Visibility
  • Version Comparison

Tree of Thoughts

Tree of thoughts (ToT) is an innovative evolution of the CoT prompting technique, which has significantly improved the problem-solving capabilities of LLMs by breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable steps. While CoT has shown effectiveness in guiding LLMs through sequential reasoning, it faces a critical limitation; if the initial reasoning step is incorrect, it can lead the entire reasoning process astray. ToT is designed to overcome this challenge by introducing a more dynamic and flexible approach to problem-solving.

ToT operates by prompting LLMs to generate multiple potential reasoning paths or “thoughts” at each step of the problem-solving process rather than following a single, linear chain of thought. This approach creates a branching, tree-like structure of thoughts, offering various perspectives on approaching or partially solving the problem at hand. Each branch represents a different potential solution path, allowing the LLM to explore various possibilities.

The LLM, equipped with ToT, evaluates the quality of each thought using search algorithms, such as breadth-first or depth-first search, to navigate the tree. It prunes less promising branches, focusing its computational resources on exploring the most viable paths toward the solution. This method increases the chances of finding the best solution and provides a systematic way to explore and evaluate different problem-solving strategies.

Recent studies by Yao et al. (2023) in Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models and Long (2023) in Large Language Model Guided Tree-of-Thought have introduced and detailed the ToT framework. These works present ToT as a significant advancement over traditional CoT prompting, highlighting its ability to encourage deeper exploration and strategic thinking in LLMs. By allowing for generating and evaluating multiple thoughts at each step, ToT facilitates a more deliberate and comprehensive approach to general problem-solving with language models, particularly in scenarios that demand complex reasoning and strategic foresight. Let’s see an example below:

Tree of Thoughts

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

After about 5 rounds, we start seeing an expert leave.

Tree of Thoughts

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Final thoughts of the remaining experts

Tree of Thoughts

Source Author, Google’s Gemini

Generated Knowledge Prompt

Generated knowledge prompting is a strategic technique that taps into the vast information reservoir of LLMs to enrich responses with additional, relevant information. This method is instrumental in crafting responses that are not only more informed and contextually grounded but also precise. At its core, generated knowledge prompting first solicits the LLM to elaborate on a given topic, thereby laying a foundational understanding. This initial step is crucial, especially for complex subjects where a deeper contextual grasp is necessary for accurate and meaningful responses.

Suppose the objective is to analyze the impact of Nikola Tesla’s inventions on modern electrical engineering.

  • Step 1: Begin with a prompt that lays the groundwork, such as, “Provide an overview of Nikola Tesla’s key inventions and contributions to science.” This prompt encourages the LLM to detail Tesla’s most significant achievements, such as developing alternating current (AC) systems.
  • Step 2: With the foundational knowledge established, the following prompt might delve deeper into the implications, “Considering Tesla’s contributions, especially his work on AC systems, how have these inventions shaped the evolution of modern electrical engineering?” This approach leverages the initial context to explore Tesla’s enduring impact on the field.

This method is exceptionally beneficial for creating materials requiring accuracy and depth. The following content is enriched with context and specificity by establishing a knowledge base. A dual prompt approach is encouraged, one for fact-checking and the other for content creation.

This strategy is particularly effective for educational content, where depth, accuracy, and connecting historical facts to current implications are crucial. By initially focusing on fact generation, the content that follows is both richer and more engaging, offering learners a well-rounded understanding of the subject.

Automatic Reasoning & Tool-Use

The Automatic Reasoning and Tool-use (ART) framework significantly advances leveraging frozen LLMs for complex problem-solving. ART is designed to utilize these unchanging models to efficiently and scalably generate intermediate reasoning steps for new tasks. Unlike systems that rely on trainable LLMs, ART’s use of frozen models means it does not update during the reasoning process, enhancing its efficiency and scalability.

Note: A frozen LLM is a type of AI model that has been trained up to a certain point, and then its learning process is halted. This means the model’s knowledge base and parameters remain unchanged regardless of any new data or interactions it encounters post-freezing. This approach ensures the model’s responses and behavior remain consistent over time, making it reliable for deployment in various applications without continuous updates or training.

ART works as follows:

  • Task decomposition: ART initiates problem-solving by pulling from a task library to reference examples of complex reasoning and tool application, outlining the necessary steps for new tasks.
  • Tool integration: It selects and employs specific tools from a tool library, weaving these into the LLM’s reasoning process. ART can dynamically pause and resume the reasoning to incorporate tool outputs, ensuring seamless integration.
  • Interleaved reasoning and tool-use: ART strategically alternates between the LLM’s reasoning and external tool usage, guided by CoT prompting. This interleaved approach enhances task navigation.
  • Flexibility and extensibility: Noteworthy for its adaptability, ART can address new tasks directly from demonstrations and permits updates or corrections through human intervention. Its design supports pausing and adjusting the process as new inputs are integrated.

ART stands out for its innovative use of frozen LLMs to automate complex reasoning, making it a powerful tool for a wide range of applications. Its ability to integrate external tools and adapt to new challenges through simple updates to its libraries marks a significant step forward in the field of artificial intelligence.

Active Prompt

Active prompting, developed by Diao et al. in the paper Active Prompting with Chain-of-Thought for Large Language Models, is an innovative approach that enhances the adaptability of LLMs to varied tasks through dynamic, task-specific example prompts. It addresses the constraints of traditional CoT methods, which depend on a static set of human-annotated examples that may not align perfectly with every task. The process overview is as follows:

  • Uncertainty estimation: The model is queried with training questions to produce several (k) potential answers. The diversity in these answers is measured using a disagreement metric, identifying the level of uncertainty in the model’s responses.
  • Selection: Questions with the highest uncertainty are pinpointed for human annotation. This prioritizes questions where the model’s answers vary the most, ensuring targeted improvement.
  • Annotation: Human experts annotate these selected questions with detailed CoT reasoning. This step embeds nuanced, task-specific guidance directly into the model’s approach.
  • Inference: Armed with these new annotations, the LLM enhances its ability to deduce answers, leveraging the depth of human reasoning to bolster its performance across tasks.

Active Prompting thus uses uncertainty-based active learning to dynamically adapt LLMs to a variety of tasks, enhancing their precision and utility by integrating expert annotations where the model shows the most variability in understanding.

ReAct Prompt

ReAct, short for Reason and Act, is a technique introduced by Yao et al. in the paper ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models designed to enhance the LLM capabilities in performing language reasoning and decision-making tasks. This approach prompts LLMs to produce verbal reasoning traces and actionable steps, merging the thinking and doing processes in a cohesive framework.

Integrating ReAct with CoT prompting leverages the strengths of both techniques. While CoT enhances a model’s internal reasoning capabilities, ReAct extends these capabilities by enabling actions based on external interactions and information retrieval. This combination mitigates issues like fact hallucination and prevents error propagation by continuously updating the action plans based on new information.

ReAct is versatile and effective across various tasks, including question-answering, fact verification, navigating text-based games, and web browsing. Its intuitive, generalizable, performant, and robust design makes it suitable for many applications.

Automatic Prompt Engineer

Designing the right prompts to get the best out of language models takes skill and effort. Even experienced users may not find the optimal wording.

Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE) aims to simplify this process. It uses the power of LLMs themselves to automatically create powerful prompts. Think of APE as a clever search system for prompts. Here’s how it works:

  • One LLM acts like a brainstorming partner, proposing a variety of potential instructions for a given task.
  • Another LLM acts as the worker, trying out each of these suggested instructions.
  • APE measures how well each instruction helps the LLM complete the task, automatically selecting the most successful one.

APE can discover effective prompts that human engineers might never consider, as well as reduce the workload for humans involved in prompt design and reduce bias as an automated process limits the chance of introducing accidental biases during manual prompt creation.

Least-to-Most Prompting

Least-to-Most prompting (LtM) is designed to help language models tackle complex problems by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable subproblems. LtM leads the language model through a step-by-step thought process that ultimately solves the original problem, drawing inspiration from educational strategies for teaching kids. It works as follows:

  • The complex problem is first divided into a series of subproblems. These subproblems should be designed to be individually solvable and logically lead toward solving the bigger problem. Imagine climbing a flight of stairs; each individual step is a subproblem, and climbing all the steps leads you to the top floor (the solution).
  • For each subproblem, a prompt is provided to the language model. This prompt guides the model toward finding a solution for the subproblem. Once the model has a solution, it’s incorporated into the prompt for the next subproblem. This way, the model builds upon its previous solutions, one step at a time.
  • Like climbing those stairs, each solved subproblem brings the language model closer to the final solution. With each step, the model incorporates the previous knowledge into its reasoning, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of the overall problem.

The image illustrates the LtM process by breaking down the problem of how many times Amy can use the waterslide before it closes. Stage 1 shows the decomposition into subproblems: “How long does each trip take?” and “How many times can she slide before closing?” In Stage 2, the first subproblem is solved (each trip takes 5 minutes), and this answer is used in the prompt for the next step. Finally, Stage 3 combines this information with the closing time to calculate that Amy can slide three times.

LtM vs. CoT and ToT

While LtM shares similarities with other prompting techniques like CoT and ToT, there are key differences in their approaches:

  • CoT: Similar to LtM, CoT breaks down problems into subproblems and solves them sequentially. However, CoT doesn’t explicitly pass the solutions of previous steps to the prompts for subsequent steps. This can make it harder for the model to maintain context and solve complex problems coherently.
  • ToT adopts a more exploratory approach. It creates a branching tree-like structure where the model simultaneously considers multiple solutions for each subproblem. This allows for wider exploration but can be computationally expensive and requires careful evaluation to choose the best solution path.

In essence, LtM is like a focused climb up a staircase. Each step requires specific attention, but you always know where you’re headed. CoT is like climbing one step of a ladder at a time without seeing the whole staircase: You might get there, but it may require more effort to stay on track. ToT is like exploring a maze with multiple paths: You might find shortcuts, but it’s easy to get lost without careful evaluation.

Multimodal CoT Prompting

CoT prompting helps LLMs tackle complex problems by generating step-by-step logical reasoning. However, traditional CoT focuses solely on text. Multimodal CoT extends this by incorporating information from images alongside text. Many real-world problems require understanding text and visuals (think textbooks or science questions with diagrams). Standard CoT can’t utilize this extra information for its reasoning process. Multimodal CoT operates in two stages: First, it builds a comprehensive reasoning chain by combining insights from text and images. Second, it leverages this enhanced reasoning to produce the final answer. This lets the language model create a more complete and informative chain of reasoning, leading to improved answers.

DIrectional Stimulus Prompting

LLMs are impressive tools for language generation, but harnessing them to produce precisely what you need can be tricky. Traditional fine-tuning often requires tweaking the entire LLM, which can be cumbersome. Instead, directional stimulus prompting (DSP) offers a more focused approach. Rather than directly modifying the LLM, DSP leverages a smaller, adjustable “policy model.” This policy model acts as a prompt-crafting expert, generating unique “directional stimulus prompts” for each task. Think of these directional prompts as subtle hints or nudges. They might guide the LLM to include specific keywords in a summary, generate responses in a particular format, or follow a specific style. The key is that they act on an individual instance-by-instance basis, tailoring guidance to the unique input.

But how does the policy model learn to craft these effective prompts? Here’s the clever part:

  • Learning approach 1 – Supervised learning: The policy model can be trained using existing labeled data. The model gradually learns what kind of hints work best by analyzing examples of good and bad prompts related to a specific task.
  • Learning approach 2 – Rewards and reinforcement: Instead of relying on predefined labels, the policy model can learn through trial and error. It generates prompts, observes the resulting LLM output, and receives rewards based on how well that output aligns with the desired outcome.

This way, the policy model continually refines its prompt-crafting skills, zeroing in on the most effective ways to steer the LLM toward the outputs you want.

The Benefits of Directional Stimulus Prompting:

  • Fine-tuned control: Unlike broad LLM fine-tuning, DSP offers precise, instance-specific guidance, helping you achieve the exact results you’re looking for.
  • Minimal data needed: The policy model can be optimized using relatively small amounts of labeled data, making it efficient and adaptable to new situations.
  • Black-box friendly: Since it interacts with the LLM through prompts, DSP works even with “black-box” models where internal workings are not readily accessible.

DSP is a promising technique for unlocking the full potential of LLMs, offering more control, flexibility, and efficient use of data in language generation tasks.

Program-aided Language Models

LLMs excel at understanding language, but tackling complex reasoning tasks often proves challenging. That’s where program-aided language models (PAL) come in. PAL offers a unique approach that combines the strengths of LLMs with the power of code to achieve state-of-the-art reasoning performance. Instead of directly solving problems within the LLM, PAL leverages it to break down natural language problems into clear, runnable program instructions. These instructions are then “executed” by an actual interpreter (like Python), which handles the calculations and logic, ensuring accurate and efficient solutions.

The LLM acts as a translator, transforming the problem statement into a step-by-step program. The interpreter acts as a problem solver, meticulously following the program’s instructions to arrive at the answer. PAL represents a significant leap forward in LLM reasoning capabilities. Its potential extends beyond the tasks demonstrated here, opening doors for tackling even more intricate real-world challenges that require combining language understanding with robust reasoning abilities.

The Benefits of PAL:

  • Superior accuracy: By offloading computation and reasoning to specialized tools, PAL consistently outperforms LLMs relying solely on text-based processing, achieving new state-of-the-art results on various benchmarks.
  • Efficiency: PAL focuses the LLM on its core strength of language understanding, allowing it to achieve better results even with much smaller model sizes compared to traditional LLM approaches.
  • Versatility: PAL tackles diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematical problems, symbolic reasoning, and algorithmic tasks, demonstrating its broad applicability.

Key Differences from CoT:

  • CoT prompting relies solely on text within the LLM to reason through problems. This can be less accurate and efficient for complex tasks.
  • PAL leverages actual code execution for problem-solving, ensuring precise and efficient handling of complex calculations and logic.

Final Notes

Prompt engineering is transforming how we interact with language models. From automating prompt creation to incorporating rich sources of knowledge, the techniques discussed offer more control and precision. This rapidly evolving field holds exciting potential for even greater advancements in how we use and understand language technology.


Comprehensive Guide to Prompt Engineering Techniques and Applications

  • Reduce Risk
  • Simplify Compliance
  • Gain Visibility
  • Version Comparison

Recent Blog Posts

Precision vs. Recall in the Quest for Model Mastery
Precision vs. Recall in the Quest for Model Mastery

Webinar Event
The Best LLM Safety-Net to Date:
Deepchecks, Garak, and NeMo Guardrails 🚀
June 18th, 2024    8:00 AM PST

Register NowRegister Now