Prompt Design For Reliability

Why this matters

In LLM apps and RAG systems, small wording changes can shift outputs from accurate to misleading. Reliable prompts reduce hallucinations, enforce structure, and make your application predictable under real-world noise.

• Customer Q&A: Only answer from a knowledge base and show citations.
• Data extraction: Produce valid JSON that downstream code can parse every time.
• Summarization: Honor style, length, and redaction rules under tight SLAs.
• Safety: Refuse off-policy requests and detect missing/insufficient context.

Who this is for

• NLP engineers building LLM-backed features (chat, search, RAG).
• Data scientists prototyping extraction/summarization pipelines.
• ML engineers adding guardrails and evaluation to production apps.

Prerequisites

• Basic understanding of LLM capabilities and limitations.
• Awareness of RAG concepts: retriever, context, grounding.
• Familiarity with JSON and basic error handling.

Concept explained simply

Reliable prompt design means writing instructions that consistently produce correct, parseable, and safe outputs across variations in input. You set boundaries, formats, and decision rules so the model behaves like a dependable component, not a chatty assistant.

Mental model: The contract + rails

• Contract: Define role, task, inputs, constraints, and output schema.
• Rails: Add guardrails—delimiters for context, refusal rules, and fallback outputs.
• Checks: Ask the model to self-verify, cite evidence, and state uncertainty.
• Stability: Use few-shot examples, consistent wording, and low randomness.

Worked examples

Example 1: Structured extraction (parseable JSON)

Goal: Extract order info reliably from semi-structured text.

System: You are a precise information extractor. Follow the schema exactly.
User:
Extract fields from the text. If a field is missing, set it to null.
Output JSON only. No extra text.
Schema:
{
  "order_id": string,
  "customer_name": string,
  "items": [ {"sku": string, "qty": number} ],
  "total_amount_usd": number
}
Text:
"Order #AB-9012 for Sam Lee. 2x SKU:K1, 1x SKU:Q5. Grand total 149.99 USD."

{
  "order_id": "AB-9012",
  "customer_name": "Sam Lee",
  "items": [
    {"sku": "K1", "qty": 2},
    {"sku": "Q5", "qty": 1}
  ],
  "total_amount_usd": 149.99
}

Example 2: RAG with citations and strict grounding

Goal: Answer only from retrieved context and cite evidence IDs.

System: You answer using only the provided <context>. If the answer is not in context, reply "Not in context".
User:
Task: Answer the question in 2–3 sentences. Include citations as [doc_id:line_range].
Rules:
- Use only <context>. Do not use prior knowledge.
- If insufficient info: reply exactly "Not in context".
- No speculation.

<context>
[docA:12-18] Our plan includes same-day shipping within Zone 1.
[docB:40-42] Zone 2 delivery: 2–3 business days.
</context>
Question: Do you offer same-day shipping in Zone 2?

Not in context

Example 3: Summarization with constraints and safety

Goal: Produce a compliant summary that redacts PII and respects length.

System: You produce policy-compliant summaries.
User:
Summarize the text in <content> to 120–160 words.
Redact PII (names, emails, phone numbers) using [REDACTED].
Start with a one-line TL;DR.
If PII appears, append "(PII redacted)" at the end.
Output:
{
  "tldr": string,
  "summary": string
}

<content>
Spoke with Alex Carter (alex@ex.com, +1 555 000 1111)...
</content>

Reliable prompt patterns

• Structure: Role → Task → Inputs → Rules → Output format → Examples → Test cases.
• Delimiters: Wrap non-user knowledge in tags or backticks to avoid bleed-through.
• Explicit refusals: Define when and how to refuse (exact wording).
• Schema and validators: Describe required keys and types; ask the model to validate before finalizing.
• Few-shot: Include compact, high-quality examples matching the output schema exactly.
• Stability: Prefer low temperature; keep wording stable across versions.

Before final output, verify:
1) Output matches schema exactly.
2) No fields invented beyond <context>.
3) If missing info, use null or "Not in context" as specified.
If any check fails, fix and re-emit.

Evaluation and guardrails

• Unit-style prompt tests: Feed tricky inputs (empty fields, conflicting facts, adversarial instructions).
• Consistency checks: Ask for a confidence tag and a short evidence quote or citation ID.
• Refusal tests: Ensure policy-violating or out-of-scope queries trigger the exact refusal message.
• RAG grounding checks: Compare answer tokens to provided context spans.

Exercises (do these now)

These mirror the graded exercises below. Aim for stability, grounding, and parseability.

Exercise 1: JSON extractor for invoices

Design a prompt that extracts invoice_id, vendor, date (ISO), line_items (desc, qty, unit_price), and total_usd. Require JSON-only output. Define that missing fields become null. Add a one-line self-check before final output.

• Checklist:
  • Clear schema with required keys
  • Missing → null policy
  • JSON-only instruction
  • Self-check step

Exercise 2: RAG answerer with strict refusals

Write a prompt that answers using only provided <context>, returns citations as [doc:range], and replies exactly "Not in context" if information is missing. Include a verify-then-answer step.

• Checklist:
  • Context delimiter
  • Exact refusal phrase
  • Citation format
  • Verification step

Common mistakes and self-checks

• Vague output requests → Fix: specify schema and types; require JSON-only.
• No fallback behavior → Fix: define exact refusal phrase or null policy.
• Leaky context → Fix: delimit and instruct to use only provided context.
• Unstable wording → Fix: keep prompts consistent and use few-shot examples.
• Missing post-conditions → Fix: add self-checks and evidence citations.

Practical projects

• Build a “grounded FAQ” widget: retrieve top-3 passages, answer with citations, and track refusal rates.
• Invoice pipeline: parse PDFs → extract JSON → validate → aggregate; log parse failure cases and refine the prompt.
• Policy-compliant summarizer: redact PII, enforce length and JSON schema, and measure violation rates over a test set.

Learning path

• Before this: Basics of LLM prompting → RAG fundamentals.
• Now: Reliability patterns for grounding, refusals, and structure.
• Next: Retrieval tuning, evaluation harnesses, and model monitoring.

Next steps

• Convert your best prompt into a reusable template with slots for context and parameters.
• Create a small adversarial test suite and run it before each deployment.
• Track a reliability metric: parse success rate, refusal precision, or citation correctness.

Mini challenge

Take an existing RAG prompt and harden it against jailbreaks (“ignore instructions”), missing data, and conflicting passages. Add a verification step and exact refusal copy. Measure improvement on 10 tricky cases.

Quick Test

Everyone can take the test for free. If you are logged in, your progress will be saved.