@cubis/foundry 0.3.64 → 0.3.66

package/workflows/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/claude/skills/prompt-engineer/steering/prompt-optimization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,560 @@
+# Prompt Optimization
+
+---
+
+## The Optimization Loop
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                         PROMPT OPTIMIZATION CYCLE                           │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                                             │
+│    ┌──────────┐     ┌──────────┐     ┌──────────┐     ┌──────────┐        │
+│    │ Baseline │────▶│  Measure │────▶│ Diagnose │────▶│  Change  │        │
+│    │  Prompt  │     │ Results  │     │  Issues  │     │   One    │        │
+│    └──────────┘     └──────────┘     └──────────┘     └────┬─────┘        │
+│         ▲                                                   │              │
+│         │                                                   │              │
+│         └───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘              │
+│                           (Iterate until target met)                       │
+│                                                                             │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+> **CRITICAL RULE: Change one variable at a time.** Multiple simultaneous changes make it impossible to identify what worked.
+
+---
+
+## Establishing a Baseline
+
+Before optimizing, establish clear metrics and baseline performance.
+
+### Baseline Checklist
+
+```markdown
+## Prompt Baseline Document
+
+### Prompt Version: v1.0.0
+### Date: YYYY-MM-DD
+### Model: claude-opus-4-5-20251101
+
+### Task Definition
+[What should the prompt accomplish?]
+
+### Success Criteria
+- Primary metric: [e.g., accuracy >= 95%]
+- Secondary metrics: [e.g., latency < 2s, cost < $0.01/request]
+
+### Test Set
+- Size: [number of test cases]
+- Source: [how test cases were collected]
+- Categories: [breakdown by type/difficulty]
+
+### Baseline Results
+| Metric | Value | Target |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Accuracy | 82% | 95% |
+| Avg latency | 1.8s | <2s |
+| Avg tokens | 450 | <300 |
+| Cost/request | $0.015 | <$0.01 |
+```
+
+### Creating a Representative Test Set
+
+```python
+def create_test_set(task_type: str, size: int = 100) -> list:
+    """Create a diverse test set for prompt evaluation."""
+    test_cases = []
+
+    # Include different categories
+    categories = {
+        "typical": 0.60,      # Common cases (60%)
+        "edge_case": 0.20,    # Boundary conditions (20%)
+        "adversarial": 0.10,  # Tricky inputs (10%)
+        "malformed": 0.10,    # Invalid/unusual inputs (10%)
+    }
+
+    for category, proportion in categories.items():
+        count = int(size * proportion)
+        test_cases.extend(generate_cases(task_type, category, count))
+
+    return test_cases
+```
+
+---
+
+## Diagnostic Framework
+
+When prompts underperform, diagnose the root cause before changing anything.
+
+### Failure Category Analysis
+
+| Failure Type | Symptoms | Common Causes |
+|--------------|----------|---------------|
+| **Format errors** | Wrong structure, missing fields | Unclear format spec, no examples |
+| **Hallucinations** | Made-up facts, wrong answers | Lack of grounding, vague instructions |
+| **Inconsistency** | Same input, different outputs | Ambiguous instructions, high temperature |
+| **Over-verbosity** | Too much explanation | No length constraints, wrong audience |
+| **Under-performance** | Low accuracy across board | Wrong pattern choice, insufficient context |
+| **Edge case failures** | Breaks on unusual inputs | Missing constraint handling |
+
+### Diagnostic Questions
+
+```markdown
+## Prompt Diagnostic Checklist
+
+### 1. Instruction Clarity
+- [ ] Is the task unambiguously defined?
+- [ ] Are constraints explicit?
+- [ ] Is the output format specified?
+
+### 2. Context Sufficiency
+- [ ] Does the model have all needed information?
+- [ ] Are examples representative of real inputs?
+- [ ] Is domain knowledge assumed correctly?
+
+### 3. Edge Case Coverage
+- [ ] Empty inputs?
+- [ ] Maximum length inputs?
+- [ ] Invalid/malformed inputs?
+- [ ] Ambiguous cases?
+
+### 4. Instruction Conflicts
+- [ ] Do any instructions contradict each other?
+- [ ] Do examples match the instructions?
+- [ ] Are constraints achievable together?
+```
+
+### Error Analysis Template
+
+```python
+def analyze_failures(results: list) -> dict:
+    """Categorize and analyze prompt failures."""
+    analysis = {
+        "total": len(results),
+        "passed": 0,
+        "failed": 0,
+        "failure_categories": {},
+        "examples": []
+    }
+
+    for result in results:
+        if result["passed"]:
+            analysis["passed"] += 1
+        else:
+            analysis["failed"] += 1
+            category = categorize_failure(result)
+            analysis["failure_categories"][category] = \
+                analysis["failure_categories"].get(category, 0) + 1
+
+            # Keep first 3 examples per category
+            if len([e for e in analysis["examples"] if e["category"] == category]) < 3:
+                analysis["examples"].append({
+                    "category": category,
+                    "input": result["input"],
+                    "expected": result["expected"],
+                    "actual": result["actual"],
+                    "hypothesis": generate_hypothesis(result)
+                })
+
+    return analysis
+```
+
+---
+
+## Optimization Techniques
+
+### Technique 1: Instruction Refinement
+
+**Problem:** Vague or ambiguous instructions leading to inconsistent outputs.
+
+**Before:**
+```
+Summarize this article.
+
+{article}
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+Summarize the following article in exactly 2-3 sentences.
+Focus on the main conclusion and key supporting evidence.
+Do not include quotes or specific numbers unless essential.
+Write for a general audience with no assumed domain knowledge.
+
+Article:
+{article}
+
+Summary:
+```
+
+### Technique 2: Constraint Tightening
+
+**Problem:** Outputs that are technically correct but don't meet practical needs.
+
+**Before:**
+```
+Extract the email addresses from this text.
+
+{text}
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+Extract all valid email addresses from the following text.
+
+Requirements:
+- Return as a JSON array of strings
+- Return empty array [] if no emails found
+- Only include properly formatted emails (user@domain.tld)
+- Deduplicate - each email appears once
+- Sort alphabetically
+
+Text:
+{text}
+
+Emails:
+```
+
+### Technique 3: Example Calibration
+
+**Problem:** Few-shot examples that don't match real-world input distribution.
+
+```python
+def calibrate_examples(example_pool: list, real_inputs: list, k: int = 5) -> list:
+    """Select examples that match the distribution of real inputs."""
+    # Cluster real inputs
+    real_clusters = cluster_by_embedding(real_inputs, n_clusters=k)
+
+    # For each cluster, find best matching example
+    calibrated = []
+    for cluster_center in real_clusters:
+        best_match = max(
+            example_pool,
+            key=lambda ex: cosine_similarity(embed(ex["input"]), cluster_center)
+        )
+        calibrated.append(best_match)
+
+    return calibrated
+```
+
+### Technique 4: Output Scaffolding
+
+**Problem:** Model produces correct content but wrong structure.
+
+**Before:**
+```
+Analyze this code for security issues.
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+Analyze this code for security issues using the following structure:
+
+## Summary
+[One sentence overview]
+
+## Issues Found
+For each issue:
+- **Severity:** [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+- **Location:** [file:line or function name]
+- **Description:** [What's wrong]
+- **Fix:** [How to remediate]
+
+## Recommendation
+[Overall assessment and priority order for fixes]
+
+Code:
+{code}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Token Optimization
+
+### Token Reduction Strategies
+
+| Strategy | Savings | Risk | When to Use |
+|----------|---------|------|-------------|
+| Remove redundant instructions | 10-20% | Low | Always |
+| Shorten examples | 20-40% | Medium | Token-constrained |
+| Use abbreviations/symbols | 5-15% | Medium | Technical audiences |
+| Compress context | 30-50% | High | Very long inputs |
+| Switch to zero-shot | 40-60% | High | Simple tasks |
+
+### Before/After: Token Reduction
+
+**Before (180 tokens):**
+```
+You are a helpful assistant that specializes in analyzing customer feedback
+and extracting sentiment information. Your task is to read the customer
+review provided below and determine whether the overall sentiment expressed
+in the review is positive, negative, or neutral. Please respond with exactly
+one word: either "positive", "negative", or "neutral". Do not include any
+other text, explanations, or formatting in your response.
+
+Customer Review:
+{review}
+
+Sentiment:
+```
+
+**After (45 tokens):**
+```
+Classify sentiment as: positive, negative, or neutral.
+Reply with one word only.
+
+Review: {review}
+
+Sentiment:
+```
+
+### Measuring Token Impact
+
+```python
+import tiktoken
+
+def compare_token_usage(prompt_v1: str, prompt_v2: str, model: str = "gpt-4") -> dict:
+    """Compare token usage between two prompt versions."""
+    enc = tiktoken.encoding_for_model(model)
+
+    v1_tokens = len(enc.encode(prompt_v1))
+    v2_tokens = len(enc.encode(prompt_v2))
+
+    return {
+        "v1_tokens": v1_tokens,
+        "v2_tokens": v2_tokens,
+        "difference": v1_tokens - v2_tokens,
+        "reduction_pct": ((v1_tokens - v2_tokens) / v1_tokens) * 100,
+        "cost_impact": estimate_cost_savings(v1_tokens, v2_tokens, model)
+    }
+```
+
+### Context Compression Techniques
+
+```python
+def compress_context(text: str, target_ratio: float = 0.5) -> str:
+    """Compress context while preserving key information."""
+
+    # Strategy 1: Extractive summarization
+    key_sentences = extract_key_sentences(text, ratio=target_ratio)
+
+    # Strategy 2: Remove redundancy
+    deduplicated = remove_redundant_info(key_sentences)
+
+    # Strategy 3: Use LLM for compression
+    compressed = llm.complete(f"""
+    Compress the following text to {int(target_ratio * 100)}% of its length.
+    Preserve all facts, numbers, and key details.
+    Remove only redundant or low-information content.
+
+    Text: {deduplicated}
+
+    Compressed:
+    """)
+
+    return compressed
+```
+
+---
+
+## A/B Testing Framework
+
+### Test Design
+
+```python
+class PromptABTest:
+    """Framework for A/B testing prompt variants."""
+
+    def __init__(self, prompt_a: str, prompt_b: str, test_cases: list):
+        self.prompt_a = prompt_a
+        self.prompt_b = prompt_b
+        self.test_cases = test_cases
+        self.results = {"a": [], "b": []}
+
+    def run(self, sample_size: int = 100) -> dict:
+        """Run A/B test with randomized assignment."""
+        import random
+
+        for test_case in random.sample(self.test_cases, sample_size):
+            # Randomize order to avoid position bias
+            if random.random() < 0.5:
+                result_a = self.evaluate(self.prompt_a, test_case)
+                result_b = self.evaluate(self.prompt_b, test_case)
+            else:
+                result_b = self.evaluate(self.prompt_b, test_case)
+                result_a = self.evaluate(self.prompt_a, test_case)
+
+            self.results["a"].append(result_a)
+            self.results["b"].append(result_b)
+
+        return self.analyze_results()
+
+    def analyze_results(self) -> dict:
+        """Statistical analysis of A/B test results."""
+        from scipy import stats
+
+        scores_a = [r["score"] for r in self.results["a"]]
+        scores_b = [r["score"] for r in self.results["b"]]
+
+        t_stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(scores_a, scores_b)
+
+        return {
+            "prompt_a_mean": sum(scores_a) / len(scores_a),
+            "prompt_b_mean": sum(scores_b) / len(scores_b),
+            "p_value": p_value,
+            "significant": p_value < 0.05,
+            "winner": "a" if sum(scores_a) > sum(scores_b) else "b",
+            "confidence": 1 - p_value
+        }
+```
+
+### Minimum Sample Size Calculation
+
+```python
+def calculate_sample_size(
+    baseline_rate: float,
+    minimum_detectable_effect: float,
+    significance_level: float = 0.05,
+    power: float = 0.80
+) -> int:
+    """Calculate required sample size for detecting a given effect."""
+    from scipy import stats
+
+    # Effect size (Cohen's h for proportions)
+    p1 = baseline_rate
+    p2 = baseline_rate + minimum_detectable_effect
+    h = 2 * (math.asin(math.sqrt(p1)) - math.asin(math.sqrt(p2)))
+
+    # Required sample size per group
+    z_alpha = stats.norm.ppf(1 - significance_level / 2)
+    z_beta = stats.norm.ppf(power)
+
+    n = 2 * ((z_alpha + z_beta) / h) ** 2
+
+    return math.ceil(n)
+
+# Example: Detect 5% improvement from 80% baseline
+# sample_size = calculate_sample_size(0.80, 0.05)  # ~783 per group
+```
+
+---
+
+## Version Control for Prompts
+
+### Prompt Versioning Schema
+
+```yaml
+# prompt_registry.yaml
+prompts:
+  sentiment_classifier:
+    current: v2.1.0
+    versions:
+      v1.0.0:
+        file: prompts/sentiment/v1.0.0.txt
+        date: 2024-01-15
+        metrics:
+          accuracy: 0.82
+          latency_p50: 1.2s
+        status: deprecated
+
+      v2.0.0:
+        file: prompts/sentiment/v2.0.0.txt
+        date: 2024-02-01
+        metrics:
+          accuracy: 0.89
+          latency_p50: 1.1s
+        changes:
+          - Added few-shot examples
+          - Tightened output format
+        status: deprecated
+
+      v2.1.0:
+        file: prompts/sentiment/v2.1.0.txt
+        date: 2024-02-15
+        metrics:
+          accuracy: 0.94
+          latency_p50: 1.0s
+        changes:
+          - Optimized examples for edge cases
+          - Reduced token count by 30%
+        status: production
+```
+
+### Change Documentation Template
+
+```markdown
+## Prompt Change Record
+
+### Version: v2.0.0 -> v2.1.0
+### Date: 2024-02-15
+### Author: [name]
+
+### Problem Statement
+Accuracy dropped to 85% on sarcastic reviews (edge case category).
+
+### Hypothesis
+Current examples don't include sarcastic tone, causing misclassification.
+
+### Changes Made
+1. Added 2 sarcastic review examples
+2. Added instruction: "Consider tone and context, not just words"
+3. Removed verbose instruction paragraph (token optimization)
+
+### Test Results
+| Metric | v2.0.0 | v2.1.0 | Change |
+|--------|--------|--------|--------|
+| Overall accuracy | 89% | 94% | +5% |
+| Sarcasm accuracy | 62% | 91% | +29% |
+| Tokens | 156 | 109 | -30% |
+
+### Rollback Plan
+Revert to v2.0.0 if accuracy drops below 90% in production.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Common Optimization Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Why It's Wrong | Better Approach |
+|---------|----------------|-----------------|
+| Multiple changes at once | Can't identify what worked | One change per iteration |
+| Testing on training examples | Overfitting to test set | Hold out validation set |
+| Optimizing for edge cases first | May hurt common case | Fix common cases first |
+| Ignoring latency/cost | Production constraints matter | Track all metrics |
+| No baseline measurement | Can't prove improvement | Always measure first |
+| Skipping failure analysis | Symptoms vs. root cause | Diagnose before changing |
+
+---
+
+## Optimization Decision Tree
+
+```
+                    ┌──────────────────────────┐
+                    │   Prompt Underperforms   │
+                    └────────────┬─────────────┘
+                                 │
+                    ┌────────────▼─────────────┐
+                    │  What's the failure mode? │
+                    └────────────┬─────────────┘
+                                 │
+        ┌────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┐
+        │                        │                        │
+  Format Issues            Wrong Content           Inconsistent
+        │                        │                        │
+        ▼                        ▼                        ▼
+┌───────────────┐      ┌───────────────┐      ┌───────────────┐
+│ Add output    │      │ Improve       │      │ Add examples  │
+│ scaffolding   │      │ instructions  │      │ Lower temp    │
+│ Add examples  │      │ Add context   │      │ Add constraints│
+└───────────────┘      │ Use CoT       │      └───────────────┘
+                       └───────────────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **Evaluation Frameworks** - Measuring prompt performance systematically
+- **Fine-Tuning Expert** - When optimization hits limits
+- **Cost Engineer** - Token and latency optimization at scale