Complete Guide to LLM Prompt Engineering

Introduction

Prompt engineering is the practice of designing inputs that guide Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce desired outputs. It is part art, part science — small changes in phrasing, structure, and context can dramatically affect output quality. Below is a practical guide to prompt patterns, few-shot learning, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), system prompts, temperature tuning, function calling, and evaluation strategies.

Prompt Anatomy

Basic structure

[System Prompt]
You are a helpful assistant that explains technical concepts clearly.

[User Message]
Explain what a closure is in JavaScript.

[Assistant Response]
A closure is a function that has access to variables in its outer scope...

System prompt

The system prompt sets behavior, tone, and constraints for the entire conversation.

import openai

response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "system",
            "content": (
                "You are a senior code reviewer. "
                "Review code for bugs, performance issues, and security vulnerabilities. "
                "Be specific and provide corrected code snippets. "
                "If the code is correct, say 'No issues found.'"
            ),
        },
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "Review this code:\n```python\ndef get_user(id):\n    return db.query(f'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {id}')\n```",
        },
    ],
)

Prompt Patterns

Zero-shot

Ask the model to perform a task without examples. Works well for simple, common tasks.

Classify the sentiment of this review as positive, negative, or neutral:
"The product arrived late and the quality was terrible."

Few-shot

Provide examples to guide the model’s output format and behavior.

Classify the sentiment of each review:

Review: "Amazing product, fast delivery!"
Sentiment: positive

Review: "Worst purchase ever."
Sentiment: negative

Review: "It works as expected."
Sentiment: neutral

Review: "The product arrived late and the quality was terrible."
Sentiment:

Chain-of-thought (CoT)

Ask the model to reason step-by-step before giving an answer. Improves accuracy on complex reasoning tasks.

A store sells apples at $2 each and oranges at $3 each.
A customer buys 5 apples and 3 oranges.
They pay with a $50 bill.

Think step by step:
1. Calculate the cost of apples
2. Calculate the cost of oranges
3. Calculate the total cost
4. Calculate the change

Answer:

Self-consistency

Run the same CoT prompt multiple times and take the majority answer.

def self_consistent_answer(prompt: str, n: int = 5) -> str:
    responses = []
    for _ in range(n):
        response = openai.chat.completions.create(
            model="gpt-4",
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
            temperature=0.7,
        )
        responses.append(response.choices[0].message.content)

    # Extract final answers and vote
    answers = [extract_answer(r) for r in responses]
    return max(set(answers), key=answers.count)

Structured Output

JSON output

response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    response_format={"type": "json_object"},
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "system",
            "content": "You are a data extraction assistant. Always respond with valid JSON.",
        },
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": (
                "Extract the name, age, and skills from this text:\n"
                "John is a 30-year-old software engineer who knows Python, JavaScript, and Go.\n\n"
                "Respond with JSON in this format:\n"
                '{"name": "", "age": 0, "skills": []}'
            ),
        },
    ],
)

Using Pydantic for validation

from pydantic import BaseModel
from typing import List
import json

class Person(BaseModel):
    name: str
    age: int
    skills: List[str]

raw_response = response.choices[0].message.content
person = Person.model_validate_json(raw_response)
print(person.name, person.age, person.skills)

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

RAG combines a retrieval system (vector database) with an LLM to ground responses in factual data.

from openai import OpenAI
import numpy as np

client = OpenAI()

def get_embedding(text: str) -> list:
    response = client.embeddings.create(
        model="text-embedding-3-small",
        input=text,
    )
    return response.data[0].embedding

def cosine_similarity(a: list, b: list) -> float:
    return np.dot(a, b) / (np.linalg.norm(a) * np.linalg.norm(b))

def retrieve_context(query: str, documents: list, top_k: int = 3) -> list:
    query_embedding = get_embedding(query)
    doc_embeddings = [(doc, get_embedding(doc)) for doc in documents]

    scored = [
        (doc, cosine_similarity(query_embedding, emb))
        for doc, emb in doc_embeddings
    ]
    scored.sort(key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
    return [doc for doc, _ in scored[:top_k]]

def rag_answer(query: str, documents: list) -> str:
    context = retrieve_context(query, documents)

    prompt = (
        f"Answer the question based on the following context.\n\n"
        f"Context:\n{chr(10).join(context)}\n\n"
        f"Question: {query}\n\n"
        f"Answer:"
    )

    response = client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4",
        messages=[
            {"role": "system", "content": "Answer only using the provided context. If the context doesn't contain the answer, say 'I don't have enough information.'"},
            {"role": "user", "content": prompt},
        ],
    )
    return response.choices[0].message.content

Temperature and Sampling

Parameter	Low (0-0.3)	Medium (0.4-0.7)	High (0.8-1.0)
Use case	Factual, code, extraction	Creative writing, summaries	Brainstorming, ideation
Output	Deterministic, focused	Balanced	Diverse, unpredictable

# Factual answer — low temperature
response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    temperature=0.0,
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "What is the capital of France?"}],
)

# Creative writing — high temperature
response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    temperature=0.9,
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Write a short poem about debugging."}],
)

Function Calling

import json

tools = [
    {
        "type": "function",
        "function": {
            "name": "get_weather",
            "description": "Get the current weather for a city",
            "parameters": {
                "type": "object",
                "properties": {
                    "city": {"type": "string", "description": "City name"},
                    "unit": {"type": "string", "enum": ["celsius", "fahrenheit"]},
                },
                "required": ["city"],
            },
        },
    }
]

response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "What's the weather in Tokyo?"}],
    tools=tools,
)

tool_call = response.choices[0].message.tool_calls[0]
args = json.loads(tool_call.function.arguments)
print(f"City: {args['city']}")

# Call your function, then feed result back
weather_result = get_weather(args["city"])

response = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    messages=[
        {"role": "user", "content": "What's the weather in Tokyo?"},
        response.choices[0].message,
        {
            "role": "tool",
            "tool_call_id": tool_call.id,
            "content": json.dumps(weather_result),
        },
    ],
)
print(response.choices[0].message.content)

Prompt Chaining

Break complex tasks into a sequence of prompts, where each output feeds the next.

def pipeline(topic: str) -> str:
    # Step 1: Generate an outline
    outline = call_llm(f"Create a detailed outline for an article about {topic}.")

    # Step 2: Write each section
    sections = []
    for section in parse_sections(outline):
        content = call_llm(f"Write the section '{section}' for an article about {topic}. Keep it under 200 words.")
        sections.append(content)

    # Step 3: Combine and polish
    draft = "\n\n".join(sections)
    final = call_llm(f"Review and polish this article. Fix grammar and improve flow:\n\n{draft}")

    return final

Evaluation

Human evaluation rubric

Score each response on a 1-5 scale:

1. Accuracy: Is the information correct?
2. Completeness: Does it address all parts of the question?
3. Clarity: Is the response clear and well-structured?
4. Relevance: Does it stay on topic without unnecessary info?
5. Safety: Is the response free of harmful content?

Automated evaluation with LLM-as-judge

def evaluate_response(prompt: str, response: str) -> dict:
    eval_prompt = f"""
    Rate the following AI response on a scale of 1-5 for:
    - accuracy
    - completeness
    - clarity

    User question: {prompt}
    AI response: {response}

    Respond with JSON: {{"accuracy": 0, "completeness": 0, "clarity": 0}}
    """

    result = openai.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4",
        response_format={"type": "json_object"},
        messages=[{"role": "user", "content": eval_prompt}],
    )
    return json.loads(result.choices[0].message.content)

Best Practices

• For a deeper guide, see Complete Guide to LLM Application Architecture.

• Be specific — “Summarize in 3 bullet points” beats “Summarize”

• Provide context — tell the model what role it plays and who the audience is

• Use examples — few-shot prompts improve format consistency

• Set constraints — word count, format, tone, what to avoid

• Use system prompts for persistent instructions — avoids repeating in every message

• Break complex tasks into steps — chain prompts for better results

• Use CoT for reasoning tasks — “think step by step” improves accuracy

• Set temperature appropriately — low for factual, high for creative

• Validate structured output — use Pydantic or JSON schema validation

• Test with edge cases — empty inputs, adversarial prompts, long context

• Version your prompts — track changes and their impact on output quality

• Use RAG for factual accuracy — ground responses in your data

Common Mistakes

• Being too vague — “write something good” gives unpredictable results
• Not providing examples — the model guesses the format
• Overloading a single prompt — too many instructions cause confusion
• Ignoring temperature — using default temperature for all tasks
• Not handling hallucinations — LLMs confidently state false information
• Trusting JSON output without validation — models produce malformed JSON
• Not testing edge cases — empty strings, very long inputs, adversarial prompts
• Using one prompt for all models — different models respond to different phrasing
• Not setting system constraints — the model may produce off-topic or unsafe content
• Forgetting context limits — long conversations exceed token windows