Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

What Should We Engineer in Prompts? Training Humans in Requirement-Driven LLM Use

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.08775 v3 pith:DV6T6BMN submitted 2024-09-13 cs.HC cs.AI

What Should We Engineer in Prompts? Training Humans in Requirement-Driven LLM Use

classification cs.HC cs.AI
keywords prompttrainingengineeringrequirementsropecomplexhumansprompting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Prompting LLMs for complex tasks (e.g., building a trip advisor chatbot) needs humans to clearly articulate customized requirements (e.g., "start the response with a tl;dr"). However, existing prompt engineering instructions often lack focused training on requirement articulation and instead tend to emphasize increasingly automatable strategies (e.g., tricks like adding role-plays and "think step-by-step"). To address the gap, we introduce Requirement-Oriented Prompt Engineering (ROPE), a paradigm that focuses human attention on generating clear, complete requirements during prompting. We implement ROPE through an assessment and training suite that provides deliberate practice with LLM-generated feedback. In a randomized controlled experiment with 30 novices, ROPE significantly outperforms conventional prompt engineering training (20% vs. 1% gains), a gap that automatic prompt optimization cannot close. Furthermore, we demonstrate a direct correlation between the quality of input requirements and LLM outputs. Our work paves the way to empower more end-users to build complex LLM applications.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Compass vs Railway Tracks: Unpacking User Mental Models for Communicating Long-Horizon Work to Humans vs. AI

    cs.HC 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Users treat human delegation for long tasks as a flexible compass but AI delegation as rigid railway tracks due to perceived AI limitations in inference and judgment.

  2. When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools

    cs.GT 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A tradeoff model shows generative AI can reduce bias against diverse preferences by strategically eliciting information instead of always inferring from majority patterns.