{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidz3nu3sig6ylz2dkdgudygo6xcpvprr2lt7et5hewj2bpwozssty",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmcgqqwx4i22"
  },
  "path": "/t/prompt-engineering-the-protocol-of-intent-the-theoretical-foundation/175880#post_11",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-20T16:45:02.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "“Channelling the deterministic ones into proven execution workflows and separating them from the more exploratory ones is probably better.”\n\nthis is actually how i develop my prompt engineering based tools.\n\nany time i have to resolve a complex problem i try and outline a solution, if that works, i record that. and if a similar/ same situation comes up again, i try the previous solution, if that works, that gets adopted as a tool. over time the tools get updated, refined. they slowly become more comprehensive.\n\nthese tools eventually become a part of an opperational logic for problem solving or even best practices so better ways of doing things depending on your workflow.\n\n“meaning you need to undertand why the recommended selected response is produced by the model and in some cases you can also decompose it into certain parts that are more understandable for a human auditing the process”\n\nit is interesting to observe how responces differ across models for specific complex imputs.\n\ntthis is why i have a series on prompt engineering - to explore these observations, and try to explain them better in a way that isnt loaded with jargon.",
  "title": "Prompt Engineering - The Protocol of Intent: The Theoretical Foundation"
}