Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
|
The false dichotomy here is interesting. Prompt engineering breaks down because it treats the prompt as one blob of text. You lose track of which part is the role, which part is the constraint, which part is the output spec. Structured intent fixes routing, but the prompt itself is still unstructured. What if you structure the prompt before it reaches the model? Typed blocks (role, objective, constraints, output format, examples) that compile into XML give the LLM explicit semantic markers. The model knows where the rules end and the task begins. I built flompt around this idea. You decompose a raw prompt into 12 semantic blocks visually, then compile to Claude-optimized XML. It sits upstream of whatever routing you do. Open source, 75+ stars and growing. Would be curious how this maps to the JSONFIRST approach. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
There's an ongoing debate in the AI agent space:
Option A — Prompt engineering: Write precise system prompts that tell the LLM what to do. Works great in demos, breaks in production when users say things unexpectedly.
Option B — Structured intent: Parse the user input first into a structured object (action, object, confidence), then route to the right handler. More predictable, easier to test, but adds a step.
JSONFIRST takes the second approach — converting text to JDON intent before any agent execution.
Which approach are you using? Where does prompt engineering break down for you?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions