🗨️

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt

Engineering

ETMI5: Explain to Me in 5
In this section, we delve into the limitations of general AI models in specialized
domains, underscoring the significance of domain-adapted LLMs. We explore
the advantages of these models, including depth, precision, improved user
experiences, and addressing privacy concerns.

We introduce three types of domain adaptation methods: Domain-Specific Pre-

Training, Domain-Specific Fine-Tuning, and Retrieval Augmented Generation
(RAG). Each method is outlined, providing details on types, training durations,
and quick summaries. We then explain each of these methods in further detail
with real-world examples. In the end, we provide an overview of when RAG
should be used as opposed to model updating methods.

Introduction
Prompting

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 1

 In the realm of language models, "prompting" refers to the art and science of
formulating precise instructions or queries provided to the model to generate
desired outputs. It's the input—typically in the form of text—that users present to
the language model to elicit specific responses. The effectiveness of a prompt
lies in its ability to guide the model's understanding and generate outputs
aligned with user expectations.

Prompt Engineering
Prompt engineering, a rapidly growing field, revolves around refining
prompts to unleash the full potential of Language Models in various
applications.

In research, prompt engineering is a powerful tool, enhancing LLMs'

performance across tasks like question answering and arithmetic reasoning.
Users need to leverage these skills to create effective prompting techniques
that seamlessly interact with LLMs and other tools.

Beyond crafting prompts, prompt engineering is a rich set of skills essential

for interacting and developing with LLMs. It's not just about design; it's a
crucial skill for understanding and exploiting LLM capabilities, ensuring
safety, and introducing novel features like domain knowledge integration.

This proficiency is vital in aligning AI behavior with human intent. While

professional prompt engineers delve into the complexities of AI, the skill isn't
exclusive to specialists. Anyone refining prompts for models like ChatGPT is
engaging in prompt engineering, making it accessible to users exploring
language model potentials.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 2

 Image Source: https://zapier.com/blog/prompt-engineering/

Why Prompting?
Large language models are trained through a process called unsupervised
learning on vast amounts of diverse text data. During training, the model learns
to predict the next word in a sentence based on the context provided by the
preceding words. This process allows the model to capture grammar, facts,
reasoning abilities, and even some aspects of common sense.

Prompting is a crucial aspect of using these models effectively. Here's why

prompting LLMs the right way is essential:

1. Contextual Understanding: LLMs are trained to understand context and

generate responses based on the patterns learned from diverse text data.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 3

 When you provide a prompt, it's crucial to structure it in a way that aligns
with the context the model is familiar with. This helps the model make
relevant associations and produce coherent responses.

2. Training Data Patterns: During training, the model learns from a wide
range of text, capturing the linguistic nuances and patterns present in the
data. Effective prompts leverage this training by incorporating similar
language and structures that the model has encountered in its training data.
This enables the model to generate responses that are consistent with its
learned patterns.

3. Transfer Learning: LLMs utilize transfer learning. The knowledge gained

during training on diverse datasets is transferred to the task at hand when
prompted. A well-crafted prompt acts as a bridge, connecting the general
knowledge acquired during training to the specific information or action
desired by the user.

4. Contextual Prompts for Contextual Responses: By using prompts that

resemble the language and context the model was trained on, users tap into
the model's ability to understand and generate content within similar
contexts. This leads to more accurate and contextually appropriate
responses.

5. Mitigating Bias: The model may inherit biases present in its training data.
Thoughtful prompts can help mitigate bias by providing additional context or
framing questions in a way that encourages unbiased responses. This is
crucial for aligning model outputs with ethical standards.

To summarize, the training of LLMs involves learning from massive datasets,

and prompting is the means by which users guide these models to produce
useful, relevant, and policy-compliant responses. It's a collaborative process
where users and models work together to achieve the desired outcome. There’s
also a growing field called adversarial prompting which involves intentionally
crafting prompts to exploit weaknesses or biases in a language model, with the
goal of generating responses that may be misleading, inappropriate, or
showcase the model's limitations. Safeguarding models from providing harmful
responses is a challenge that needs to be solved and is an active research
area.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 4

 Prompting Basics
The basic principles of prompting involve the inclusion of specific elements
tailored to the task at hand. These elements include:

1. Instruction: Clearly specify the task or action you want the model to
perform. This sets the context for the model's response and guides its
behavior.

2. Context: Provide external information or additional context that helps the

model better understand the task and generate more accurate responses.
Context can be crucial in steering the model towards the desired outcome.

3. Input Data: Include the input or question for which you seek a response.
This is the information on which you want the model to act or provide
insights.

4. Output Indicator: Define the type or format of the desired output. This
guides the model in presenting the information in a way that aligns with your
expectations.

Here's an example prompt for a text classification task:

Prompt:

Classify the text into neutral, negative, or positive

Text: I think the food was okay.
Sentiment:

In this example:

Instruction: "Classify the text into neutral, negative, or positive."

Input Data: "I think the food was okay."

Output Indicator: "Sentiment."

Note that this example doesn't explicitly use context, but context can also be
incorporated into the prompt to provide additional information that aids the
model in understanding the task better.
It's important to highlight that not all four elements are always necessary for a
prompt, and the format can vary based on the specific task. The key is to

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 5

 structure prompts in a way that effectively communicates the user's intent and
guides the model to produce relevant and accurate responses.

OpenAI has recently provided guidelines on best practices for prompt

engineering using the OpenAI API. For a detailed understanding, you can
explore the guidelines here, the below points gives a brief summary:

1. Use the Latest Model: For optimal results, it is recommended to use the
latest and most capable models.

2. Structure Instructions: Place instructions at the beginning of the prompt

and use ### or """ to separate the instruction and context for clarity and
effectiveness.

3. Be Specific and Descriptive: Clearly articulate the desired context,

outcome, length, format, style, etc., in a specific and detailed manner.

4. Specify Output Format with Examples: Clearly express the desired

output format through examples, making it easier for the model to
understand and respond accurately.

5. Use Zero-shot, Few-shot, and Fine-tune Approach: Begin with a zero-

shot approach, followed by a few-shot approach (providing examples). If
neither works, consider fine-tuning the model.

6. Avoid Fluffy Descriptions: Reduce vague and imprecise descriptions.

Instead, use clear instructions and avoid unnecessary verbosity.

7. Provide Positive Guidance: Instead of stating what not to do, clearly state
what actions should be taken in a given situation, offering positive guidance.

8. Code Generation Specific - Use "Leading Words": When generating

code, utilize "leading words" to guide the model toward a specific pattern or
language, improving the accuracy of code generation.

💡It’s also important to note that crafting effective prompts is an iterative

process, and you may need to experiment to find the most suitable approach for
your specific use case. Prompt patterns may be specific to models and how they
were trained (architecture, datasets used etc.)

Explore these examples of prompts to gain a better understanding of how to

craft effective prompts in different use-cases.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 6

 Advanced Prompting Techniques
Prompting techniques constitute a rapidly evolving area of research, with
researchers continually exploring novel methods to effectively prompt models for
optimal performance. The simplest forms of prompting include zero-shot, where
only instructions are provided, and few-shot, where examples are given, and the
language model (LLM) is tasked with replication. More intricate techniques are
elucidated in various research papers. While the provided list is not exhaustive,
existing prompting methods can be tentatively classified into high-level
categories. It's crucial to note that these classes are derived from current
techniques and are not exhaustive or definitive; they are subject to evolution
and modification, reflecting the dynamic nature of advancements in this field. It's
important to highlight that numerous methods may fall into one or more of these
classes, exhibiting overlapping characteristics to get the benefits offered by
multiple categories.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 7

 A. Step-by-Step Modular Decomposition
These methods involve breaking down complex problems into smaller,
manageable steps, facilitating a structured approach to problem-solving. These
methods guide the LLM through a sequence of intermediate steps, allowing it to
focus on solving one step at a time rather than tackling the entire problem in a
single step. This approach enhances the reasoning abilities of LLMs and is
particularly useful for tasks requiring multi-step thinking.
Examples of methods falling under this category include:

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting:

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting is a technique to enhance complex

reasoning capabilities through intermediate reasoning steps. This method
involves providing a sequence of reasoning steps that guide a large language
model (LLM) through a problem, allowing it to focus on solving one step at a
time.
In the provided example below, the prompt involves evaluating whether the sum
of odd numbers in a given group is an even number. The LLM is guided to
reason through each example step by step, providing intermediate reasoning
before arriving at the final answer. The output shows that the model successfully
solves the problem by considering the odd numbers and their sums.

Image Source: Wei et al. (2022)

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 8

 1a. Zero-shot/Few-Shot CoT Prompting:

Zero-shot involves adding the prompt "Let's think step by step" to the original
question to guide the LLM through a systematic reasoning process. Few-shot
prompting provides the model with a few examples of similar problems to
enhance reasoning abilities. These CoT methods prompt significantly improves
the model's performance by explicitly instructing it to think through the problem
step by step. In contrast, without the special prompt, the model fails to provide
the correct answer.

Image Source: Kojima et al. (2022)

1b. Automatic Chain-of-Thought (Auto-CoT):

Automatic Chain-of-Thought (Auto-CoT) was designed to automate the
generation of reasoning chains for demonstrations. Instead of manually crafting
examples, Auto-CoT leverages LLMs with a "Let's think step by step" prompt to
automatically generate reasoning chains one by one.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 9

 Image Source: Zhang et al. (2022)
The Auto-CoT process involves two main stages:

1. Question Clustering: Partition questions into clusters based on similarity.

2. Demonstration Sampling: Select a representative question from each

cluster and generate its reasoning chain using Zero-Shot-CoT with simple
heuristics.

The goal is to eliminate manual efforts in creating diverse and effective

examples. Auto-CoT ensures diversity in demonstrations, and the heuristic-
based approach encourages the model to generate simple yet accurate
reasoning chains.

Overall, these CoT prompting techniques showcase the effectiveness of guiding

LLMs through step-by-step reasoning for improved problem-solving and
demonstration generation.

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) Prompting

Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) Prompting is a technique that extends the Chain-of-

Thought approach. It allows language models to explore coherent units of text
("thoughts") as intermediate steps towards problem-solving. ToT enables
models to make deliberate decisions, consider multiple reasoning paths, and

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 10

 self-evaluate choices. It introduces a structured framework where models can
look ahead or backtrack as needed during the reasoning process. ToT
Prompting provides a more structured and dynamic approach to reasoning,
allowing language models to navigate complex problems with greater flexibility
and strategic decision-making. It is particularly beneficial for tasks that require
comprehensive and adaptive reasoning capabilities.

Key Characteristics:

Coherent Units ("Thoughts"): ToT prompts LLMs to consider coherent

units of text as intermediate reasoning steps.

Deliberate Decision-Making: Enables models to make decisions

intentionally and evaluate different reasoning paths.

Backtracking and Looking Ahead: Allows models to backtrack or look

ahead during the reasoning process, providing flexibility in problem-solving.

Image Source: Yao et el. (2023)

3. Graph of Thought Prompting

This work arises from the fact that human thought processes often follow non-
linear patterns, deviating from simple sequential chains. In response, the
authors propose Graph-of-Thought (GoT) reasoning, a novel approach that
models thoughts not just as chains but as graphs, capturing the intricacies of
non-sequential thinking.

This extension introduces a paradigm shift in representing thought units. Nodes

in the graph symbolize these thought units, and edges depict connections,
presenting a more realistic portrayal of the complexities inherent in human
cognition. Unlike traditional trees, GoT employs Directed Acyclic Graphs

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 11

 (DAGs), allowing the modeling of paths that fork and converge. This divergence
provides GoT with a significant advantage over conventional linear approaches.

The GoT reasoning model operates in a two-stage framework. Initially, it

generates rationales, and subsequently, it produces the final answer. To
facilitate this, the model leverages a Graph-of-Thoughts encoder for
representation learning. The integration of GoT representations with the original
input occurs through a gated fusion mechanism, enabling the model to combine
both linear and non-linear aspects of thought processes.

Image Source: Yao et el. (2023)

B. Comprehensive Reasoning and Verification

Comprehensive Reasoning and Verification methods in prompting entail a more
sophisticated approach where reasoning is not just confined to providing a final
answer but involves generating detailed intermediate steps. The distinctive
aspect of these techniques is the integration of a self-verification mechanism
within the framework. As the LLM generates intermediate answers or reasoning
traces, it autonomously verifies their consistency and correctness. If the internal
verification yields a false result, the model iteratively refines its responses,
ensuring that the generated reasoning aligns with the expected logical

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 12

 coherence. These checks contributes to a more robust and reliable reasoning
process, allowing the model to adapt and refine its outputs based on internal
validation

1. Automatic Prompt Engineer

Automatic Prompt Engineer (APE) is a technique that treats instructions as

programmable elements and seeks to optimize them by conducting a search
across a pool of instruction candidates proposed by an LLM. Drawing inspiration
from classical program synthesis and human prompt engineering, APE employs
a scoring function to evaluate the effectiveness of candidate instructions. The
selected instruction, determined by the highest score, is then utilized as the
prompt for the LLM. This automated approach aims to enhance the efficiency of
prompt generation, aligning with classical program synthesis principles and
leveraging the knowledge embedded in large language models to improve
overall performance in producing desired outputs.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 13

 Image Source: Zhou et al., (2022)

2. Chain of Verification (CoVe)

The Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) method addresses the challenge of

hallucination in large language models by introducing a systematic verification
process. It begins with the model drafting an initial response to a user query,
potentially containing inaccuracies. CoVe then plans and poses independent
verification questions, aiming to fact-check the initial response without bias. The
model answers these questions, and based on the verification outcomes,
generates a final response, incorporating corrections and improvements
identified through the verification process. CoVe ensures unbiased verification,
leading to enhanced factual accuracy in the final response, and contributes to
improved overall model performance by mitigating the generation of inaccurate
information.

Image Source: Dhuliawala et al.2023

3. Self Consistency

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 14

 Self Consistency represents a refinement in prompt engineering, specifically
targeting the limitations of naive greedy decoding in chain-of-thought prompting.
The core concept involves sampling multiple diverse reasoning paths using few-
shot CoT and leveraging the generated responses to identify the most
consistent answer. This method aims to enhance the performance of CoT
prompting, particularly in tasks that demand arithmetic and commonsense
reasoning. By introducing diversity in reasoning paths and prioritizing
consistency, Self Consistency contributes to more robust and accurate language
model responses within the CoT framework.

Image Source: Wang et al. (2022)

4. ReACT

The ReAct framework combines reasoning and action in LLMs to enhance their
capabilities in dynamic tasks. The framework involves generating both verbal
reasoning traces and task-specific actions in an interleaved manner. ReAct aims
to address the limitations of models, like chain-of-thought , that lack access to
the external world and can encounter issues such as fact hallucination and error
propagation. Inspired by the synergy between "acting" and "reasoning" in
human learning and decision-making, ReAct prompts LLMs to create, maintain,
and adjust plans for acting dynamically. The model can interact with external

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 15

 environments, such as knowledge bases, to retrieve additional information,
leading to more reliable and factual responses.

Image Source: Yao et al., 2022

How ReAct Works:

1. Dynamic Reasoning and Acting: ReAct generates both verbal reasoning

traces and actions, allowing for dynamic reasoning in response to complex
tasks.

2. Interaction with External Environments: The action step enables

interaction with external sources, like search engines or knowledge bases,
to gather information and refine reasoning.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 16

 3. Improved Task Performance: The framework's integration of reasoning
and action contributes to outperforming state-of-the-art baselines on
language and decision-making tasks.

4. Enhanced Human Interpretability: ReAct leads to improved human

interpretability and trustworthiness of LLMs, making their responses more
understandable and reliable.

C. Usage of External Tools/Knowledge or Aggregation

This category of prompting methods encompasses techniques that leverage
external sources, tools, or aggregated information to enhance the performance
of LLMs. These methods recognize the importance of accessing external
knowledge or tools for more informed and contextually rich responses.
Aggregation techniques involve harnessing the power of multiple responses to
enhance the robustness. This approach recognizes that diverse perspectives
and reasoning paths can contribute to more reliable and comprehensive
answers. Here's an overview:

1. Active Prompting (Aggregation)

Active Prompting was designed to enhance the adaptability LLMs to various

tasks by dynamically selecting task-specific example prompts. Chain-of-Thought
methods typically rely on a fixed set of human-annotated exemplars, which may
not always be the most effective for diverse tasks. Here's how Active Prompting
addresses this challenge:

1. Dynamic Querying:

The process begins by querying the LLM with or without a few CoT
examples for a set of training questions.

The model generates k possible answers, introducing an element of

uncertainty in its responses.

2. Uncertainty Metric:

An uncertainty metric is calculated based on the disagreement among

the k generated answers. This metric reflects the model's uncertainty
about the most appropriate response.

3. Selective Annotation:

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 17

 The questions with the highest uncertainty, indicating a lack of
consensus in the model's responses, are selected for annotation by
humans.

Humans provide new annotated exemplars specifically tailored to

address the uncertainties identified by the LLM.

4. Adaptive Learning:

The newly annotated exemplars are incorporated into the training data,
enriching the model's understanding and adaptability for those specific
questions.

The model learns from the newly annotated examples, adjusting its
responses based on the task-specific guidance provided.

Active Prompting's dynamic adaptation mechanism enables LLMs to actively

seek and incorporate task-specific examples that align with the challenges
posed by different tasks. By leveraging human-annotated exemplars for
uncertain cases, this approach contributes to a more contextually aware and
effective performance across diverse tasks.

Image Source: Diao et al., (2023)

2. Automatic Multi-step Reasoning and Tool-use (ART) (External Tools)

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 18

 ART emphasizes on task handling with LLMs. This framework integrates Chain-
of-Thought prompting and tool usage by employing a frozen LLM. Instead of
manually crafting demonstrations, ART selects task-specific examples from a
library and enables the model to automatically generate intermediate reasoning
steps. During test time, it integrates external tools into the reasoning process,
fostering zero-shot generalization for new tasks. ART is not only extensible,
allowing for human updates to task and tool libraries, but also promotes
adaptability and versatility in addressing a variety of tasks with LLMs.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 19

 Image Source: Paranjape et al., (2023)

3. Chain-of-Knowledge (CoK)

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 20

 This framework aims to bolster LLMs by dynamically integrating grounding
information from diverse sources, fostering more factual rationales and
mitigating the risk of hallucination during generation. CoK operates through
three key stages: reasoning preparation, dynamic knowledge adapting, and
answer consolidation. It starts by formulating initial rationales and answers while
identifying relevant knowledge domains. Subsequently, it refines these
rationales incrementally by adapting knowledge from the identified domains,
ultimately providing a robust foundation for the final answer. The figure below
illustrates a comparison with other methods, highlighting CoK's incorporation of
heterogeneous sources for knowledge retrieval and dynamic knowledge
adapting.

Image Source: Li et al. 2024

Risks
Prompting comes with various risks, and prompt hacking is a notable concern
that exploits vulnerabilities in LLMs. The risks associated with prompting
include:

1. Prompt Injection:

Risk: Malicious actors can inject harmful or misleading content into

prompts, leading LLMs to generate inappropriate, biased, or false
outputs.

Context: Untrusted text used in prompts can be manipulated to make

the model say anything the attacker desires, compromising the integrity

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 21

 of generated content.

2. Prompt Leaking:

Risk: Attackers may extract sensitive information from LLM responses,

posing privacy and security concerns.

Context: Changing the user_input to attempt to leak the prompt itself is

a form of prompt leaking, potentially revealing internal information.

3. Jailbreaking:

Risk: Jailbreaking allows users to bypass safety and moderation

features, leading to the generation of controversial, harmful, or
inappropriate responses.

Context: Prompt hacking methodologies, such as pretending, can

exploit the model's difficulty in rejecting harmful prompts, enabling users
to ask any question they desire.

4. Bias and Misinformation:

Risk: Prompts that introduce biased or misleading information can result

in outputs that perpetuate or amplify existing biases and spread
misinformation.

Context: Crafted prompts can manipulate LLMs into producing biased or

inaccurate responses, contributing to the reinforcement of societal
biases.

5. Security Concerns:

Risk: Prompt hacking poses a broader security threat, allowing

attackers to compromise the integrity of LLM-generated content and
potentially exploit models for malicious purposes.

Context: Defensive measures, including prompt-based defenses and

continuous monitoring, are essential to mitigate security risks
associated with prompt hacking.

To address these risks, it is crucial to implement robust defensive strategies,

conduct regular audits of model behavior, and stay vigilant against potential
vulnerabilities introduced through prompts. Additionally, ongoing research and

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 22

 development are necessary to enhance the resilience of LLMs against prompt-
based attacks and mitigate biases in generated content.

Popular Tools
Here is a collection of well-known tools for prompt engineering. While some
function as end-to-end app development frameworks, others are tailored for
prompt generation and maintenance or evaluation purposes. The listed tools are
predominantly open source or free to use and have demonstrated good
adaptability. It's important to note that there are additional tools available,
although they might be less widely recognized or require payment.

1. PromptAppGPT:

Description: A low-code prompt-based rapid app development

framework.

Features: Low-code prompt-based development, GPT text and DALLE

image generation, online prompt editor/compiler/runner, automatic UI
generation, support for plug-in extensions.

Objective: Enables natural language app development based on GPT,

lowering the barrier to GPT application development.

2. PromptBench:

Description: A PyTorch-based Python package for the evaluation of

LLMs.

Features: User-friendly APIs for quick model performance assessment,

prompt engineering methods (Few-shot Chain-of-Thought, Emotion
Prompt, Expert Prompting), evaluation of adversarial prompts, dynamic
evaluation to mitigate potential test data contamination.

Objective: Facilitates the evaluation and assessment of LLMs with

various capabilities, including prompt engineering and adversarial
prompt evaluation.

3. Prompt Engine:

Description: An NPM utility library for creating and maintaining prompts

for LLMs.

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 23

 Background: Aims to simplify prompt engineering for LLMs like GPT-3
and Codex, providing utilities for crafting inputs that coax specific
outputs from the models.

Objective: Facilitates the creation and maintenance of prompts,

codifying patterns and practices around prompt engineering.

4. Prompts AI:

Description: An advanced GPT-3 playground with a focus on helping

users discover GPT-3 capabilities and assisting developers in prompt
engineering for specific use cases.

Goals: Aid first-time GPT-3 users, experiment with prompt engineering,

optimize the product for use cases like creative writing, classification,
and chat bots.

5. OpenPrompt:

Description: A library built upon PyTorch for prompt-learning, adapting

LLMs to downstream NLP tasks.

Features: Standard, flexible, and extensible framework for deploying

prompt-learning pipelines, supporting loading PLMs from huggingface
transformers.

Objective: Provides a standardized approach to prompt-learning,

making it easier to adapt PLMs for specific NLP tasks.

6. Promptify:

Features: Test suite for LLM prompts, perform NLP tasks in a few lines
of code, handle out-of-bounds predictions, output provided as Python
objects for easy parsing, support for custom examples and samples, run
inference on models from the Huggingface Hub.

Objective: Aims to facilitate prompt testing for LLMs, simplify NLP tasks,
and optimize prompts to reduce OpenAI token costs.

Read/Watch These Resources (Optional)

1. https://www.promptingguide.ai/

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 24

 2. https://aman.ai/primers/ai/prompt-engineering/

3. https://www.deeplearning.ai/short-courses/chatgpt-prompt-engineering-for-
developers/

4. https://learnprompting.org/courses

Read These Papers (Optional)

1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05970

2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11495

3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08123

4. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13626

[Week 2] Prompting and Prompt Engineering 25