Prompt Engineering Patterns
Seth HobsonCommunityCreated by Seth Hobson
- Skill
- Guidelines
- Agent tooling
- MIT
- Low risk
- Has scripts
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
This skill provides a framework for developing and refining prompts for LLM applications. It covers methodologies such as few-shot learning, chain-of-thought reasoning, and structured output generation. The content includes guidance on creating reusable templates, implementing system prompts, and debugging prompt behavior to achieve consistent results.
What it does
- Provides patterns for few-shot learning and dynamic example selection
- Explains techniques for eliciting step-by-step reasoning via chain-of-thought
- Demonstrates how to enforce structured outputs using schemas
- Offers strategies for iterative prompt optimization and testing
- Includes methods for building modular and conditional prompt templates
- Defines approaches for setting model behavior through system prompts
When to use it
- When designing prompts for complex LLM tasks
- When needing to improve the consistency of model outputs
- When implementing reasoning chains for logic or math problems
- When requiring reliable, machine-readable output formats
- When creating reusable prompt libraries for applications
Advantages
- Standardizes prompt development through established patterns
- Enables more predictable model behavior
- Supports integration with structured data workflows
- Facilitates modular design for complex prompt systems
Usage examples
- “How can I use few-shot learning to improve my model's classification accuracy?”
- The agent provides strategies for selecting relevant examples and constructing effective input-output pairs to guide the model.
- “Show me how to force an LLM to return JSON.”
- The agent demonstrates how to use schema enforcement and structured output patterns to ensure the model returns valid JSON.
- “My prompt is producing inconsistent results, how do I debug it?”
- The agent suggests iterative refinement techniques, such as adding reasoning steps or providing better examples to stabilize output.
- “How do I implement chain-of-thought in my prompt?”
- The agent explains how to use trigger phrases or few-shot reasoning traces to elicit step-by-step logic from the model.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/wshobson/prompt-engineering-patterns/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip prompt-engineering-patterns.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Seth Hobson
Prompt Engineering Patterns
Master advanced prompt engineering techniques to maximize LLM performance, reliability, and controllability.
When to Use This Skill
Designing complex prompts for production LLM applications
Optimizing prompt performance and consistency
Implementing structured reasoning patterns (chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought)
Building few-shot learning systems with dynamic example selection
Creating reusable prompt templates with variable interpolation
Debugging and refining prompts that produce inconsistent outputs
Implementing system prompts for specialized AI assistants
Using structured outputs (JSON mode) for reliable parsing
Core Capabilities
1. Few-Shot Learning
Example selection strategies (semantic similarity, diversity sampling)
Balancing example count with context window constraints
Constructing effective demonstrations with input-output pairs
Dynamic example retrieval from knowledge bases
Handling edge cases through strategic example selection
2. Chain-of-Thought Prompting
Step-by-step reasoning elicitation
Zero-shot CoT with "Let's think step by step"
Few-shot CoT with reasoning traces
Self-consistency techniques (sampling multiple reasoning paths)
Verification and validation steps
3. Structured Outputs
JSON mode for reliable parsing
Pydantic schema enforcement
Type-safe response handling
Error handling for malformed outputs
4. Prompt Optimization
Iterative refinement workflows
A/B testing prompt variations
Measuring prompt performance metrics (accuracy, consistency, latency)
Reducing token usage while maintaining quality
Handling edge cases and failure modes
5. Template Systems
Variable interpolation and formatting
Conditional prompt sections
Multi-turn conversation templates
Role-based prompt composition
Modular prompt components
6. System Prompt Design
Setting model behavior and constraints
Defining output formats and structure
Establishing role and expertise
Safety guidelines and content policies
Context setting and background information
Quick Start
from langchain_anthropic import ChatAnthropic
from langchain_core.prompts import ChatPromptTemplate
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
# Define structured output schema
class SQLQuery(BaseModel):
query: str = Field(description="The SQL query")
explanation: str = Field(description="Brief explanation of what the query does")
tables_used: list[str] = Field(description="List of tables referenced")
# Initialize model with structured output
llm = ChatAnthropic(model="claude-sonnet-5")
structured_llm = llm.with_structured_output(SQLQuery)
# Create prompt template
prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_messages([
("system", """You are an expert SQL developer. Generate efficient, secure SQL queries.
Always use parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection.
Explain your reasoning briefly."""),
("user", "Convert this to SQL: {query}")
])
# Create chain
chain = prompt | structured_llm
# Use
result = await chain.ainvoke({
"query": "Find all users who registered in the last 30 days"
})
print(result.query)
print(result.explanation)Detailed patterns and worked examples
Detailed pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.
Best Practices
Be Specific: Vague prompts produce inconsistent results
Show, Don't Tell: Examples are more effective than descriptions
Use Structured Outputs: Enforce schemas with Pydantic for reliability
Test Extensively: Evaluate on diverse, representative inputs
Iterate Rapidly: Small changes can have large impacts
Monitor Performance: Track metrics in production
Version Control: Treat prompts as code with proper versioning
Document Intent: Explain why prompts are structured as they are
Common Pitfalls
Over-engineering: Starting with complex prompts before trying simple ones
Example pollution: Using examples that don't match the target task
Context overflow: Exceeding token limits with excessive examples
Ambiguous instructions: Leaving room for multiple interpretations
Ignoring edge cases: Not testing on unusual or boundary inputs
No error handling: Assuming outputs will always be well-formed
Hardcoded values: Not parameterizing prompts for reuse
Success Metrics
Track these KPIs for your prompts:
Accuracy: Correctness of outputs
Consistency: Reproducibility across similar inputs
Latency: Response time (P50, P95, P99)
Token Usage: Average tokens per request
Success Rate: Percentage of valid, parseable outputs
User Satisfaction: Ratings and feedback
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer1019 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.0 KiB
- SKILL.md5.1 KiB
- assets/few-shot-examples.json4.1 KiB
- assets/prompt-template-library.md3.2 KiB
- references/chain-of-thought.md9.2 KiB
- references/details.md9.0 KiB
- references/few-shot-learning.md10.9 KiB
- references/prompt-optimization.md12.5 KiB
- references/prompt-templates.md11.1 KiB
- references/system-prompts.md5.3 KiB
- scripts/optimize-prompt.pyScript9.3 KiB
references/chain-of-thought.md
Chain-of-Thought Prompting
Overview
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting elicits step-by-step reasoning from LLMs, dramatically improving performance on complex reasoning, math, and logic tasks.
Core Techniques
Zero-Shot CoT
Add a simple trigger phrase to elicit reasoning:
def zero_shot_cot(query):
return f"""{query}
Let's think step by step:"""
# Example
query = "If a train travels 60 mph for 2.5 hours, how far does it go?"
prompt = zero_shot_cot(query)
# Model output:
# "Let's think step by step:
# 1. Speed = 60 miles per hour
# 2. Time = 2.5 hours
# 3. Distance = Speed × Time
# 4. Distance = 60 × 2.5 = 150 miles
# Answer: 150 miles"Few-Shot CoT
Provide examples with explicit reasoning chains:
few_shot_examples = """
Q: Roger has 5 tennis balls. He buys 2 more cans of tennis balls. Each can has 3 balls. How many tennis balls does he have now?
A: Let's think step by step:
1. Roger starts with 5 balls
2. He buys 2 cans, each with 3 balls
3. Balls from cans: 2 × 3 = 6 balls
4. Total: 5 + 6 = 11 balls
Answer: 11
Q: The cafeteria had 23 apples. If they used 20 to make lunch and bought 6 more, how many do they have?
A: Let's think step by step:
1. Started with 23 apples
2. Used 20 for lunch: 23 - 20 = 3 apples left
3. Bought 6 more: 3 + 6 = 9 apples
Answer: 9
Q: {user_query}
A: Let's think step by step:"""Self-Consistency
Generate multiple reasoning paths and take the majority vote:
import openai
from collections import Counter
def self_consistency_cot(query, n=5, temperature=0.7):
prompt = f"{query}\n\nLet's think step by step:"
responses = []
for _ in range(n):
response = openai.ChatCompletion.create(
model="gpt-5.4",
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
temperature=temperature
)
responses.append(extract_final_answer(response))
# Take majority vote
answer_counts = Counter(responses)
final_answer = answer_counts.most_common(1)[0][0]
return {
'answer': final_answer,
'confidence': answer_counts[final_answer] / n,
'all_responses': responses
}Advanced Patterns
Least-to-Most Prompting
Break complex problems into simpler subproblems:
def least_to_most_prompt(complex_query):
# Stage 1: Decomposition
decomp_prompt = f"""Break down this complex problem into simpler subproblems:
Problem: {complex_query}
Subproblems:"""
subproblems = get_llm_response(decomp_prompt)
# Stage 2: Sequential solving
solutions = []
context = ""
for subproblem in subproblems:
solve_prompt = f"""{context}
Solve this subproblem:
{subproblem}
Solution:"""
solution = get_llm_response(solve_prompt)
solutions.append(solution)
context += f"\n\nPreviously solved: {subproblem}\nSolution: {solution}"
# Stage 3: Final integration
final_prompt = f"""Given these solutions to subproblems:
{context}
Provide the final answer to: {complex_query}
Final Answer:"""
return get_llm_response(final_prompt)Tree-of-Thought (ToT)
Explore multiple reasoning branches:
class TreeOfThought:
def __init__(self, llm_client, max_depth=3, branches_per_step=3):
self.client = llm_client
self.max_depth = max_depth
self.branches_per_step = branches_per_step
def solve(self, problem):
# Generate initial thought branches
initial_thoughts = self.generate_thoughts(problem, depth=0)
# Evaluate each branch
best_path = None
best_score = -1
for thought in initial_thoughts:
path, score = self.explore_branch(problem, thought, depth=1)
if score > best_score:
best_score = score
best_path = path
return best_path
def generate_thoughts(self, problem, context="", depth=0):
prompt = f"""Problem: {problem}
{context}
Generate {self.branches_per_step} different next steps in solving this problem:
1."""
response = self.client.complete(prompt)
return self.parse_thoughts(response)
def evaluate_thought(self, problem, thought_path):
prompt = f"""Problem: {problem}
Reasoning path so far:
{thought_path}
Rate this reasoning path from 0-10 for:
- Correctness
- Likelihood of reaching solution
- Logical coherence
Score:"""
return float(self.client.complete(prompt))Verification Step
Add explicit verification to catch errors:
def cot_with_verification(query):
# Step 1: Generate reasoning and answer
reasoning_prompt = f"""{query}
Let's solve this step by step:"""
reasoning_response = get_llm_response(reasoning_prompt)
# Step 2: Verify the reasoning
verification_prompt = f"""Original problem: {query}
Proposed solution:
{reasoning_response}
Verify this solution by:
1. Checking each step for logical errors
2. Verifying arithmetic calculations
3. Ensuring the final answer makes sense
Is this solution correct? If not, what's wrong?
Verification:"""
verification = get_llm_response(verification_prompt)
# Step 3: Revise if needed
if "incorrect" in verification.lower() or "error" in verification.lower():
revision_prompt = f"""The previous solution had errors:
{verification}
Please provide a corrected solution to: {query}
Corrected solution:"""
return get_llm_response(revision_prompt)
return reasoning_responseDomain-Specific CoT
Math Problems
math_cot_template = """
Problem: {problem}
Solution:
Step 1: Identify what we know
- {list_known_values}
Step 2: Identify what we need to find
- {target_variable}
Step 3: Choose relevant formulas
- {formulas}
Step 4: Substitute values
- {substitution}
Step 5: Calculate
- {calculation}
Step 6: Verify and state answer
- {verification}
Answer: {final_answer}
"""Code Debugging
debug_cot_template = """
Code with error:
{code}
Error message:
{error}
Debugging process:
Step 1: Understand the error message
- {interpret_error}
Step 2: Locate the problematic line
- {identify_line}
Step 3: Analyze why this line fails
- {root_cause}
Step 4: Determine the fix
- {proposed_fix}
Step 5: Verify the fix addresses the error
- {verification}
Fixed code:
{corrected_code}
"""Logical Reasoning
logic_cot_template = """
Premises:
{premises}
Question: {question}
Reasoning:
Step 1: List all given facts
{facts}
Step 2: Identify logical relationships
{relationships}
Step 3: Apply deductive reasoning
{deductions}
Step 4: Draw conclusion
{conclusion}
Answer: {final_answer}
"""Performance Optimization
Caching Reasoning Patterns
class ReasoningCache:
def __init__(self):
self.cache = {}
def get_similar_reasoning(self, problem, threshold=0.85):
problem_embedding = embed(problem)
for cached_problem, reasoning in self.cache.items():
similarity = cosine_similarity(
problem_embedding,
embed(cached_problem)
)
if similarity > threshold:
return reasoning
return None
def add_reasoning(self, problem, reasoning):
self.cache[problem] = reasoningAdaptive Reasoning Depth
def adaptive_cot(problem, initial_depth=3):
depth = initial_depth
while depth <= 10: # Max depth
response = generate_cot(problem, num_steps=depth)
# Check if solution seems complete
if is_solution_complete(response):
return response
depth += 2 # Increase reasoning depth
return response # Return best attemptEvaluation Metrics
def evaluate_cot_quality(reasoning_chain):
metrics = {
'coherence': measure_logical_coherence(reasoning_chain),
'completeness': check_all_steps_present(reasoning_chain),
'correctness': verify_final_answer(reasoning_chain),
'efficiency': count_unnecessary_steps(reasoning_chain),
'clarity': rate_explanation_clarity(reasoning_chain)
}
return metricsBest Practices
Clear Step Markers: Use numbered steps or clear delimiters
Show All Work: Don't skip steps, even obvious ones
Verify Calculations: Add explicit verification steps
State Assumptions: Make implicit assumptions explicit
Check Edge Cases: Consider boundary conditions
Use Examples: Show the reasoning pattern with examples first
Common Pitfalls
Premature Conclusions: Jumping to answer without full reasoning
Circular Logic: Using the conclusion to justify the reasoning
Missing Steps: Skipping intermediate calculations
Overcomplicated: Adding unnecessary steps that confuse
Inconsistent Format: Changing step structure mid-reasoning
When to Use CoT
Use CoT for:
Math and arithmetic problems
Logical reasoning tasks
Multi-step planning
Code generation and debugging
Complex decision making
Skip CoT for:
Simple factual queries
Direct lookups
Creative writing
Tasks requiring conciseness
Real-time, latency-sensitive applications
Resources
Benchmark datasets for CoT evaluation
Pre-built CoT prompt templates
Reasoning verification tools
Step extraction and parsing utilities
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Needs Python
Security
What our scanner noticed· Low risk
- Scripts that your agent may run
This skill includes scripts that your agent may run. Read them before you use it.
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- Seth Hobson
- Publisher
- Seth Hobson (Community)
- Source
- wshobson/agents · plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/prompt-engineering-patterns · commit 4bde316
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Seth Hobson or Seth Hobson.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download prompt-engineering-patterns.zip