The prompt worked perfectly in my terminal. Clean output, consistent format, exactly what I needed. I'd spent two days refining it, testing edge cases, optimizing token usage. It was beautiful.
Then we opened it to beta users and everything broke.
Not in the "throw an error" way. In the "produces wildly different results for different users even with identical inputs" way. In the "works great for power users, completely confuses beginners" way. In the "costs spiral out of control because some users trigger maximum context windows while others use 5% of available tokens" way.
I learned a hard lesson: a prompt that works for one user is not a prompt that works for thousands.
The skills that make you good at prompt engineering for personal use—iteration, context building, implicit assumptions—become liabilities at scale. What you need instead is something closer to API design: clear contracts, defensive validation, and systems that fail gracefully when users do unexpected things.
The Context Assumption Problem
My prompt assumed context I had but users didn't.
I'd been testing with my own data—clean JSON files, consistent formatting, domain knowledge baked into my example inputs. My prompt said "analyze this data" because I knew what "this data" meant. I knew the schema, the edge cases, the business logic.
Users uploaded CSV files with missing columns. Excel spreadsheets with merged cells. PDFs with tables that became gibberish after extraction. Documents in languages the prompt never anticipated. Data that looked structured but violated every assumption the prompt was built on.
The prompt that worked flawlessly for me failed 40% of the time for real users because "analyze this data" means nothing without shared understanding of what "this" and "data" actually are.
What I should have built: Explicit validation before the prompt even runs. Not just "did the user upload a file" but "does this file match the structure our prompt expects?" Use tools that can verify document structure before passing it to the LLM. Reject early, validate thoroughly, fail fast.
The second version of the prompt started with structured instructions: "You will receive data with these specific fields. If any required field is missing, return an error message in this exact format." This didn't just make the prompt more reliable—it made debugging user issues actually possible.
The Expertise Gradient Nobody Plans For
I'm a developer. I understand technical terminology, can debug unexpected outputs, and know how to reframe questions when the AI misunderstands. I assumed users would too.
They didn't.
Some users were more technical than me—they pushed the system in ways I never imagined, found edge cases I'd never considered, and got frustrated when the AI couldn't handle advanced use cases.
Other users had never used an AI before. They typed conversational queries expecting human understanding. They got confused by structured outputs. They didn't know how to provide the context the prompt needed.
The same prompt that felt intuitive to me was simultaneously too rigid for experts and too open-ended for beginners.
The failure: I built one prompt for one user type (me). Real products have user gradients.
What actually works: Adaptive prompt strategies based on user signals. Track how users interact with the system. If someone consistently provides well-structured inputs, give them more flexibility. If someone struggles, add more guardrails and examples.
Better yet, build different entry points for different use cases. Power users get a flexible prompt with minimal constraints. Beginners get a guided experience with clear examples and structured fields. Same underlying functionality, different interfaces for different expertise levels.
The Token Cost Explosion
In my terminal, token usage was predictable. I knew roughly how long my prompts were, what kind of outputs to expect, and could optimize accordingly.
With real users, token usage became chaotic.
Some users wrote three-word queries. Others pasted entire documents into the input field. One user uploaded a 50-page PDF and asked for "a summary"—the context window maxed out, the API call cost $12, and the output was truncated garbage.
I'd estimated API costs based on my own usage patterns. Reality was 3.5x higher because I hadn't accounted for how real users actually behave.
The problem: Users don't think about tokens. They think about tasks. They'll paste everything that seems relevant because they don't know what the AI needs.
What I learned: Input limiting isn't just about preventing abuse—it's about system sustainability. Set hard limits on input length. Show users the limits before they hit them. When someone tries to upload a massive document, don't just error—offer to extract the relevant sections first or summarize before processing.
I added tiered usage limits: free users get 2,000 tokens per request, paid users get 8,000. But more importantly, I added preprocessing. Large documents get automatically chunked and processed in pieces. Users see a warning when their input approaches the limit. The system suggests optimization strategies before hitting API rate limits.
Token cost control isn't about restricting users—it's about architecting systems that work sustainably at scale.
The Consistency Illusion
My test prompts produced consistent outputs because I was testing with consistent inputs.
Real users exposed something I'd missed: LLMs are probabilistic systems that produce different outputs for the same input. Temperature settings, random seeds, and model updates all introduce variance that doesn't matter in development but breaks things in production.
A user would run the same analysis twice and get different results. They'd complain that the system was "broken" because outputs weren't deterministic. I'd explain that "this is how LLMs work," which was technically true but practically useless.
The architectural mistake: I treated the LLM like a pure function—same input, same output. That's not what LLMs are.
The fix: Make non-determinism explicit in the UX. Show users they're getting AI-generated insights, not database queries. Add confidence scores. Offer multiple outputs and let users choose. Use lower temperature settings for tasks where consistency matters.
For critical operations, I started running prompts through multiple models and comparing outputs. If Claude and Gemini agree, show that output. If they diverge significantly, flag it for review or present both options. This increased costs but dramatically reduced user confusion about inconsistent results.
The Error Message Disaster
When my prompt failed in development, I got the raw API error and could debug it immediately.
When users hit errors, they got messages like "An error occurred" or technical stack traces they couldn't interpret. They didn't know if the problem was their input, our system, or the AI itself. They couldn't fix it, and neither could support because the error messages contained no actionable information.
The insight: Error handling for LLM systems needs to be contextual, not technical. Users don't care that the API returned a 429 rate limit error. They care that they can't complete their task right now.
I rewrote error handling to be user-facing:
- Rate limit errors → "We're experiencing high demand. Your request is queued and will complete in approximately 2 minutes."
- Context window exceeded → "Your input is too large. Try removing unnecessary details or breaking it into smaller sections."
- Invalid format → "The AI couldn't understand this input format. Here's an example of what works well: [example]"
Better yet, I added error recovery. When possible, the system automatically retries with adjusted parameters. If a prompt fails because the output is too long, reduce the requested length and try again. If the input is too large, automatically chunk it and process in pieces.
Users don't care about your technical constraints. They care about completing their task.
The Prompt Iteration Trap
In development, I iterated fast. Test a prompt, see the output, adjust, test again. This tight feedback loop made prompt engineering feel manageable.
In production, iteration became dangerous. Every prompt change affected thousands of users simultaneously. A "small improvement" that worked great in testing broke workflows that depended on specific output formats. Users built integrations assuming consistent behavior. When I "improved" the prompt, I broke their systems.
The mistake: Treating prompts like code where you can just push updates and move on.
What works: Version prompts like APIs. When you make breaking changes, don't just replace the old version—offer both. Let users opt into the new version gradually. Provide migration paths.
I started maintaining multiple prompt versions simultaneously. New users get the latest version. Existing users stay on the version they started with unless they explicitly upgrade. This sounds like maintenance hell, but it's actually essential for systems where users build workflows around your outputs.
For significant changes, I started using A/B testing to validate improvements before rolling them out. Send 10% of requests to the new prompt, compare performance metrics, gradually increase if results are better. This caught several "improvements" that worked well in isolated testing but performed worse with real usage patterns.
The Documentation Gap
I didn't need documentation for my own prompts. I knew how they worked, what inputs they expected, what outputs they'd produce.
Users had no idea. They'd send inputs in formats the system never anticipated, expect outputs in structures it never produced, and get frustrated when reality didn't match their mental model.
The realization: Prompts need documentation just like APIs. Not just "what this does" but "what inputs it accepts," "what outputs it produces," "what error cases to expect," and "how to interpret results."
I added:
- Example inputs and outputs for every use case
- Clear field descriptions explaining what the AI needs
- Output format specifications users could rely on
- Troubleshooting guides for common issues
- Limitations documentation being explicit about what won't work
This reduced support tickets by 60% because users could self-diagnose issues and adjust their inputs accordingly.
What Actually Scales
The prompts that work at scale aren't the cleverest or most optimized. They're the ones built with defensive architecture:
Validate inputs before they hit the LLM. Don't let the AI figure out that the input is wrong—catch it earlier. Check file formats, validate required fields, reject invalid structures. Use AI-powered validation to verify inputs match expected patterns before expensive API calls.
Make implicit assumptions explicit. Every assumption your prompt makes should be stated clearly. Don't assume users understand technical terminology. Don't assume they know what format you expect. Spell it out.
Design for the worst case, not the average case. Your prompt will encounter edge cases you never imagined. Build fallbacks for when assumptions fail. Handle malformed inputs gracefully. Degrade functionality rather than fail completely.
Treat prompts as contracts, not conversations. Define clear input/output specifications. Version changes carefully. Document behavior explicitly. Let users depend on consistency where it matters.
Build observability into your prompt architecture. Track what inputs users actually send. Monitor where prompts fail. Measure token usage per user. Log edge cases that break assumptions. Use this data to improve continuously.
The Real Lesson
Scaling LLM prompts beyond a single user isn't a technical problem—it's a systems design problem.
The prompt engineering skills that work in your terminal—rapid iteration, implicit context, flexible outputs—become liabilities in production. What you need instead is API thinking: clear contracts, defensive validation, versioned changes, comprehensive documentation.
Your personal prompt solves your specific problem with your understanding of context. A production prompt solves thousands of variations of similar problems for users who understand nothing about how it works.
That's not a harder prompt to write. That's a different system to architect.
-ROHIT
Top comments (0)