1. (Interview Question 1) What is prompt engineering, and why is it critical in modern LLM applications?
Key Concept: Foundations of prompt engineering and its role in system performance.
Standard Answer:
Prompt engineering is the discipline of designing inputs that guide large language models toward producing accurate, consistent, and actionable outputs. While models are trained on enormous datasets and possess broad generalization capabilities, their responses are still highly dependent on how instructions are framed. A well-crafted prompt can dramatically improve reasoning quality, reduce hallucinations, and ensure the output aligns with user goals, without modifying the model’s weights or architecture.
At its core, prompt engineering solves the alignment gap between what a user wants and what a model interprets. Natural language introduces ambiguity, and LLMs, despite their sophistication, do not inherently “understand” intent—they respond to patterns. Because of this, precise wording, structure, and context are essential.
Effective prompting usually involves four elements:
- Instruction clarity — Clearly stating what the model should do (e.g., “summarize,” “explain,” “analyze,” “compare”).
- Context and constraints — Providing necessary background, definitions, or domain information.
- Output formatting — Describing exactly how the response should look (e.g., JSON, bullet points, table).
- Examples — Few-shot prompting to shape the style, tone, or logic.
Prompt engineering is especially critical in enterprise applications, where quality and reliability matter. Teams often cannot fine-tune or retrain the model due to cost, privacy, or IP constraints. In these cases, prompt engineering becomes the primary lever for controlling system behavior.
Finally, prompt engineering is not a static skill. It evolves alongside model capabilities. Techniques like chain-of-thought prompting, self-critique loops, retrieval-augmented prompting, and agent-style instruction flows continue to push the boundaries of what LLMs can do purely through structured instructions. For this reason, prompt engineering is now considered a fundamental skill in AI product development.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- What are some examples of poorly designed prompts, and how would you fix them?
- How do prompts differ between chat-optimized models and instruction-tuned models?
- When would you choose prompt engineering over fine-tuning?
2. (Interview Question 2) Explain the difference between zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting.
Key Concept: Prompt conditioning strategies.
Standard Answer:
Zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting refer to different levels of example-based conditioning inside the prompt. These strategies influence how the model interprets the task and how much guidance it receives.
Zero-shot prompting provides no explicit examples. The prompt relies solely on instructions. This works best when the task is simple, widely known, or well-aligned with a model’s training distribution. For instance:
“Classify the sentiment of the following sentence: …”
Zero-shot is fast and cost-effective but can produce inconsistent results for complex tasks.
One-shot prompting includes exactly one example. This is often used to cue the model’s formatting or reasoning style. One-shot is surprisingly powerful because LLMs extrapolate strongly from patterns. For example:
Example:
Input: "I love this phone."
Output: Positive
Now classify: "The movie was awful."
One-shot creates consistency without heavy prompt overhead.
Few-shot prompting includes multiple examples—usually 3 to 10. This technique gives the model richer behavioral patterns. It’s particularly useful for tasks like long-text classification, style emulation, structured extraction, or multi-step reasoning. Few-shot prompting essentially functions like mini in-context training. The hidden mechanism is that the model “recognizes” the pattern and continues it.
The tradeoffs between these methods include token cost, prompt length, and generalization quality. Few-shot is strong but expensive. Zero-shot is cheap but brittle. One-shot is a middle ground.
These methods also interact with modern prompting patterns such as chain-of-thought, self-consistency, and retrieval-augmented prompting. For example, few-shot + chain-of-thought often leads to more robust reasoning.
Ultimately, the right approach depends on the task complexity and the model’s capabilities. Newer LLMs often perform extremely well in zero-shot mode, but examples can still improve reliability for specialized domains.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- How do you decide how many examples to include in a few-shot prompt?
- What’s the drawback of adding too many examples?
- When would zero-shot prompting outperform few-shot prompting?
3. (Interview Question 3) What are the most important principles of effective prompt design?
Key Concept: Prompt engineering fundamentals.
Standard Answer:
Effective prompt engineering is built on several foundational principles that consistently improve LLM outputs across use cases. While different teams use slightly different terminology, the underlying themes remain universal.
1. Be explicit, not implicit.
Ambiguous instructions produce unpredictable outputs. Phrases like “explain this” or “summarize that” need more detail: audience level, tone, length, viewpoint, and format.
2. Provide context.
Models don’t have persistent memory. Include relevant information, definitions, constraints, or business rules inside the prompt. For example: “You are helping an HR manager review resumes…”
3. Anchor the model with structure.
Clear formatting guidance dramatically improves reliability. For example:
Return the response in the following JSON format:
{ "risk_level": "", "analysis": "" }
4. Use stepwise reasoning.
Instructing the model to think step by step often yields more logical answers. Explicit chain-of-thought can help, but hidden chain-of-thought prompting is usually preferred in production to avoid verbosity.
5. Reduce cognitive load for the model.
Break complex tasks into smaller ones. Use staged prompting or multiple passes.
6. Align with LLM strengths.
LLMs excel at pattern completion, transformation, and reasoning. They struggle with strict numerical precision or remembering long sequences. Good prompt design adapts to these strengths and weaknesses.
7. Avoid jailbreak risks and unbounded behavior.
Prompts should include role boundaries such as “Stay within legal guidelines” or “Do not provide unverified claims.”
8. Iterate rapidly.
Prompt engineering is an experimental discipline. You test, measure, refine, and observe model behavior.
When these principles are applied consistently, prompt outputs become more controllable, predictable, and production-ready. These principles are model-agnostic and remain relevant even as LLMs improve.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- Which principle matters most when building enterprise LLM workflows?
- How do you test prompt quality systematically?
- What is an example of harmful ambiguity in a prompt?
4. (Interview Question 4) What is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, and when should it be used?
Key Concept: Reasoning structure.
Standard Answer:
Chain-of-Thought prompting instructs the model to break down its reasoning into step-by-step explanations before giving a final answer. This technique boosts performance on tasks involving logic, math, multi-step inference, or constraint satisfaction.
An example might look like:
“Think step by step and explain your reasoning.”
CoT works because LLMs are pattern learners. When asked to reason explicitly, they mimic the structure of human reasoning. This reduces shortcuts or hallucinated leaps.
However, CoT is not always appropriate. For production environments, verbose reasoning may clutter the output, confuse users, or leak internal logic. Because of this, many teams use hidden CoT, such as:
“Think step by step. Do not reveal your reasoning. Provide only the final answer.”
CoT is especially powerful when combined with few-shot examples of reasoning patterns. For instance, math tutoring apps often show two or three solved problems in-chain-of-thought format before asking the model to solve a new one.
But CoT is not ideal for everything. Creative tasks can become overly rigid. Simple tasks may become inefficient. And long CoT prompts increase token cost significantly.
CoT prompting is also the basis of more advanced techniques like self-consistency, where multiple reasoning paths are generated and the majority-vote answer is chosen. It also underpins tree-of-thoughts and deliberate sampling, where multiple branches of reasoning are explored before producing a final answer.
In summary, CoT prompting is an essential tool when accuracy matters more than brevity. It is especially strong in multi-step tasks, reasoning-heavy problems, debugging, or workflows that need explainability.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- How do you prevent chain-of-thought from leaking in production?
- What is the tradeoff between CoT and cost?
- When would CoT actually worsen performance?
5. (Interview Question 5) How do you design prompts for structured outputs such as JSON or SQL?
Key Concept: Output constraints and schema control.
Standard Answer:
Designing prompts for structured outputs is one of the most common—and most challenging—tasks in real-world LLM development. LLMs are generative, not deterministic, so producing perfectly structured output requires very specific instruction patterns.
The most reliable strategy is to define an explicit schema and reinforce it repeatedly inside the prompt. For example:
You must respond ONLY in valid JSON with this schema:
{
"status": "string",
"confidence": "number",
"analysis": "string"
}
Do not include commentary or explanations.
This sets the expectation and limits the degrees of freedom.
When prompting for code-like outputs such as SQL, instructing the model to validate its own output improves reliability. Example:
Write a SQL query. Then re-check that the query uses valid syntax.
Return only the final SQL, nothing else.
Other best practices include:
1. Add examples.
Few-shot prompting with valid JSON or SQL dramatically improves output fidelity.
2. Use "force output" phrasing.
Phrases like “Respond with ONLY…” or “No prose, no explanation” reduce hallucinated text.
3. Use placeholders for unknown values.
LLMs sometimes invent missing values. Include fallback rules:
“If information is missing, return null.”
4. Keep schema small.
The more fields you add, the more brittle the output becomes.
5. Use post-processing and validation.
LLMs are not perfect. Production systems should validate JSON with a parser and correct small errors automatically.
6. Use toolformer or function-calling schemas when available.
Modern models support structured output natively (e.g., function calling). In such cases, prompt engineering becomes less critical.
Overall, structured prompting is a combination of strong schema definition, strict instructions, and defensive engineering. When done well, LLMs can reliably produce perfect machine-readable outputs at scale.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- How would you fix a prompt if the model keeps adding extra commentary?
- Why do LLMs sometimes break JSON structure?
- How does function calling reduce the need for prompt engineering?
6. (Interview Question 6) How do you reduce hallucinations through prompt engineering?
Key Concept: Hallucination mitigation strategies.
Standard Answer:
Hallucinations occur when a model confidently generates false information. While no prompt can eliminate hallucinations entirely, well-designed prompts significantly reduce their frequency and severity.
The most effective mitigation techniques include:
1. Add strict factuality constraints.
For example:
“Only use information explicitly provided in the prompt or retrieved context.
If the answer is unknown, respond: ‘I don’t know.’”
2. Provide authoritative context.
RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) is one of the strongest tools against hallucination. Always feed the model relevant evidence.
3. Use disclaimers inside the prompt.
Such as:
“Do not make assumptions. Do not fabricate names, dates, or statistics.”
4. Increase reasoning transparency.
Encourage internal verification steps:
“Double-check your answer against the provided context.”
5. Use critique loops.
Self-critique prompting is powerful:
“Generate an answer. Then evaluate it for factuality. Then revise.”
6. Use confidence scoring.
Models anchored with self-assessment produce more reliable results.
7. Reduce open-endedness.
The more constrained the task, the fewer the hallucinations.
LLMs hallucinate not because they intend to, but because they are pattern matchers, not truth validators. Clear instructions reduce the space of possible completions, making hallucination less likely.
Combining prompt engineering with retrieval, grounding, workflow orchestration, and post-verification yields the best real-world results.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- Why can hallucinations never be fully removed?
- What is the difference between hallucination and creativity?
- How do you detect hallucinations programmatically?
7. (Interview Question 7) What is the role of system prompts in LLM applications?
Key Concept: Instruction hierarchy.
Standard Answer:
System prompts define the model’s global behavior, identity, boundaries, and tone. Unlike user prompts, which may vary, system prompts act as the persistent “rules of the environment.”
A system prompt typically defines:
1. Role and identity
“You are an expert financial analyst…”
2. Behavioral constraints
“Follow GAAP guidelines. Do not provide legal advice.”
3. Output style
“Write concise, structured answers.”
4. Safety constraints
“Reject harmful or unethical requests.”
System prompts matter because LLMs follow a hierarchy: system > developer > user. This allows developers to enforce consistent behavior across sessions, which is critical in production systems.
Examples where system prompts are essential:
- Customer support agents that must stay polite and professional.
- AI tutors that must always explain reasoning clearly.
- Coding assistants that must return only code unless otherwise requested.
- Enterprise apps that must avoid speculation or risky content.
A well-constructed system prompt removes the need for repeated instructions in every user query. It reduces drift and ensures reproducibility.
A poorly designed system prompt, however, can introduce conflicting instructions, degrade accuracy, or cause the model to ignore user requests.
While system prompts are powerful, they are also sensitive—small changes can yield large behavior differences. Many companies maintain versioned system prompts, update them gradually, and A/B test them rigorously.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- What happens if system and user prompts conflict?
- How long should a system prompt be?
- Should system prompts contain examples?
8. (Interview Question 8) How would you design prompts for agent-style workflows?
Key Concept: Multi-step prompting and autonomous task execution.
Standard Answer:
Agent-style prompting describes workflows where an LLM performs multiple steps autonomously, such as planning, reasoning, tool use, self-correction, or interaction loops. These workflows require carefully structured prompts to maintain coherence and prevent runaway behavior.
The typical agent prompt includes:
1. A clear high-level objective.
For example:
“You are an AI research assistant. Your goal is to complete tasks accurately while using tools responsibly.”
2. A planning step.
Agents often begin by generating a plan:
“First outline your plan before executing it.”
3. Tool instructions.
Agents often interact with search APIs, calculators, or knowledge bases.
“Use tool X when you need real data. Do not hallucinate facts.”
4. Error handling.
“To handle uncertainties, ask for clarification instead of guessing.”
5. Self-evaluation
“After producing an output, evaluate it for correctness.”
6. Memory boundaries
“Do not invent previous conversation history.”
Best practices include:
- Avoid giving too much autonomy—the agent should not run infinite loops.
- Constrain the number of steps: “Stop after 5 reasoning cycles.”
- Restrict tool usage to avoid unnecessary API calls.
- Keep instructions modular so behaviors can be updated without rewriting the entire agent.
Advanced agent prompting may include planning-execution loops, RM-guided self-improvement steps, or tree-of-thought reasoning. But without careful prompt engineering, agents can become unstable, overly verbose, or unpredictable.
Strong agent prompts balance autonomy with safety, ensuring consistent outcomes while still enabling the model to perform sophisticated multi-step tasks.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- What causes “agent drift,” and how do you prevent it?
- Should agents be allowed to modify their own instructions?
- How do you debug misbehaving agent prompts?
9. (Interview Question 9) How does Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) interact with prompt engineering?
Key Concept: Context injection and grounding.
Standard Answer:
RAG pairs a retrieval system with an LLM, injecting relevant documents into the prompt. This grounding dramatically improves factuality, domain specificity, and freshness of information. However, RAG is only effective when paired with strong prompt engineering.
Key interactions include:
1. Context framing.
The prompt must clarify that the retrieved text is authoritative:
“Use ONLY the provided context to answer.”
2. Context boundaries.
LLMs need reminders not to hallucinate beyond available evidence.
“If information is missing, respond with ‘Not enough data.’”
3. Summarization constraints.
Long RAG contexts overwhelm models. Prompts often include:
“Summarize the key points before generating the final answer.”
4. Document segmentation.
Shorter chunks produce better retrieval and better prompt fit.
5. Relevance filtering.
The model may receive multiple retrieved chunks. A good prompt instructs it to ignore irrelevant ones.
6. Source-citing.
Prompts can instruct the model to reference chunk numbers (not URLs). This improves transparency and debugging.
RAG does not eliminate prompt engineering—it amplifies its importance. Without well-structured prompts, RAG can produce contradictory, redundant, or poorly grounded answers.
RAG prompting should also account for model limitations. If the context is too long or poorly structured, LLMs may hallucinate relationships or ignore the context entirely.
A well-engineered RAG prompt produces grounded, trustworthy answers suitable for enterprise environments.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 ( Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- Why do LLMs sometimes ignore RAG context?
- How long is too long for RAG context?
- How do you prevent context injection attacks?
10. (Interview Question 10) What are common prompt engineering anti-patterns, and how do you avoid them?
Key Concept: Pitfalls and bad practices.
Standard Answer:
Anti-patterns are recurring design mistakes that degrade LLM performance. Recognizing them is essential for building stable systems.
1. Overly long prompts.
More text doesn’t equal better results. Long prompts dilute instructions, increase cost, and confuse the model.
Fix: Simplify, compress context, remove redundancy.
2. Conflicting instructions.
Telling the model “Be concise” and “Explain in detail” leads to inconsistent output.
Fix: Consolidate instructions and review for contradictions.
3. Missing constraints.
Unbounded instructions cause hallucination and unsafe behavior.
Fix: Add clear boundaries: “If uncertain, say you don’t know.”
4. Over-reliance on chain-of-thought.
Too much reasoning produces verbosity without improving accuracy.
Fix: Use hidden reasoning prompts.
5. Not specifying output format.
Leaving output structure unspecified leads to erratic formatting.
Fix: Provide explicit templates.
6. Embedding irrelevant details.
Extra narrative text distracts the model and reduces coherence.
Fix: Keep prompts functional, not decorative.
7. Excessive examples.
Few-shot prompts with too many examples increase token cost and reduce generality.
Fix: Limit examples to the minimum needed to establish a pattern.
8. Leaking system instructions into user space.
Blurring roles makes LLMs easier to jailbreak.
Fix: Separate system/developer/user prompts cleanly.
Prompt engineering is about clarity, direction, and discipline. Avoiding anti-patterns ensures reliability, safety, and performance across applications.
Possible 3 Follow-up Questions: 👉 (Want to test your skills? Try a Mock Interview — each question comes with real-time voice insights)
- Which anti-pattern causes the most hallucinations?
- How would you refactor a messy prompt?
- When is a long prompt actually justified?
Top comments (0)