Getting started: "Why does an LLM give different answers every time?"

"I asked the same question, but got a different answer than yesterday."
"I still have to ask again to get the format I need."
"It took three rounds before I got something usable."

This is one of the most common complaints from teams using AI at work. Many adopted ChatGPT or Claude to save time, but ended up losing time on repeated prompts instead.

The core issue is usually not the LLM itself. It is the prompt design method.
If you ask in a vague, search-engine style, the model responds in a vague way.
Most guides stop at abstract advice like "be clear" or "be specific."

This guide is different. It focuses on a 4-step practical checklist and failure-pattern avoidance that teams can use right away. The goal is simple: reduce prompt rework by half.

Why prompts fail in practice: 3 recurring patterns

1) Vague request: "Write good marketing copy"

Problem situation
If you ask "Write marketing copy for our product," the LLM can interpret it in many ways: social post, email, landing page, tone, audience, and length are all unclear.

Real case
A startup marketer had to re-prompt five times. Each answer used a different style (overly formal, too casual, too many emojis), and key product value was often missing.

Why it failed
Without context, the model defaults to generic templates. "Good" is subjective, so outputs stay conservative and broad.

2) Missing context: "Review this code"

Problem situation
If you paste a short snippet and ask "Is this okay?", the model tends to return surface-level feedback only.

Real case
A developer asked for review on an API call block. The model replied "no syntax issues," but missed the critical rate limiting gap.

Why it failed
Without project constraints, traffic assumptions, and policy context, the model cannot perform deep review.

3) No output format: "Summarize this"

Problem situation
If you only say "Summarize this document," output length and structure become inconsistent.

Real case
A PM requested a meeting summary but got a 1,500-character long-form response, while the target was a short Slack update.

Why it failed
The model cannot infer your definition of "summary" unless you specify structure and limits.

Practical pre-prompt checklist: lock these before writing

Fix these five items first. This alone usually cuts re-prompts dramatically.

Purpose: Why is this task needed?
Audience: Who will use or read the output?
Tone: What style should it follow?
Output format: What structure should the response follow?
Constraints: Length, forbidden terms, must-include conditions

Step 1: state the purpose in one sentence

Add a first line like: "Purpose: ..."
When purpose is explicit, the model filters noise and focuses faster.

Weak prompt

Write marketing copy.

Improved prompt

Purpose: Write short Instagram ad copy.
Product: AI schedule management app.
Audience: Office workers in their 20s-30s.

Output: A purpose-anchored prompt draft (1-2 lines)

Step 2: add 3 mandatory context blocks

Include these every time:

Current situation: What is happening now?
Constraints: What must not change or break?
Success criteria: What outcome counts as success?

Weak prompt

Review this code.
[code]

Improved prompt

Current situation: API rate-limit errors are frequent.
Constraints: No new external library, keep current code structure.
Success criteria: Reduce rate-limit errors to 0%.

Please review the code below and propose a rate limiting approach.
[code]

Output: Context-rich prompt (3-5 lines)

Step 3: specify output format as a template

"Summarize this" is weak.
"Summarize in this format" is strong.

Weak prompt

Summarize this meeting note.

Improved prompt

Summarize the meeting note using this structure:

## Decisions (max 3)
- [item 1]
- [item 2]

## Action Items (owner included)
- [owner]: [task]

## Next Meeting Agenda
- [agenda 1]

Output: Prompt with explicit template

Step 4: validate and save into a prompt library

Once a prompt works, treat it as a reusable asset.

Store these items

Full prompt text
Usage context (when to use it)
Before/after re-prompt count

Validation criteria

Does it produce consistent quality across 3 runs?
Is output usable with zero or minimal follow-up?
Can teammates reuse it and get similar quality?

Output: Reusable prompt library (at least 3 templates)

Editorial note: prompts are not chat, they are specs

In operations, prompts behave more like spec documents than casual conversation.
If the spec is vague, the output becomes unstable.

Observed pattern in teams:
When initial prompt setup quality goes up, rewrite count goes down.
A 5-minute setup often saves 30+ minutes of correction.

There is no single perfect prompt.
The winning pattern is a repeatable loop: design -> test -> refine -> reuse.

Practical case: marketing copy workflow

Situation

A marketing owner at an ecommerce startup asked:

Write promo copy for this product.

They needed five retries and spent around 40 minutes.

Improved prompt

Purpose: Instagram feed ad copy.
Product: "HealthAI" nutrition assistant app.
Audience: Busy office workers in their 20s-30s interested in health.
Tone: Friendly casual voice, 1-2 emojis.
Constraints: Under 150 characters, avoid exaggerated claims.

Create 3 versions in this format:
1. [Main copy: 20-30 chars]
   [Support line: 50-80 chars]
   [CTA: 20 chars]

Result

Re-prompt count: 5 -> 0
Total time: 40 min -> 8 min
Satisfaction: 3/5 -> 5/5

Key takeaway

Purpose removes avoidable ambiguity.
Format constraints make outputs immediately usable.
One strong prompt becomes a reusable team asset.

Core execution summary

Item	Practical rule
Purpose statement	Add one explicit purpose line
Context package	Include situation, constraints, success criteria
Output structure	Provide markdown/JSON/table template
Reuse strategy	Save successful prompts by category
Validation	Check consistency over 3 runs with low re-prompt count

FAQ

Q1. Doesn't a longer prompt slow us down?

Prompt writing may take 3-5 extra minutes up front, but total work time usually drops because retries decrease.

Q2. Should prompts be in English instead of Korean?

It depends on the task and model. For everyday operations, Korean prompts can be just as effective. For code-heavy or documentation-heavy work, English can still have an advantage.

Q3. How do we measure prompt quality?

Track these three metrics weekly:

Re-prompt count
First-output usability rate
Total cycle time (prompt + retries + edits)

Getting started: "Why does an LLM give different answers every time?"

Why prompts fail in practice: 3 recurring patterns

1) Vague request: "Write good marketing copy"

2) Missing context: "Review this code"

3) No output format: "Summarize this"

Practical pre-prompt checklist: lock these before writing

Step 1: state the purpose in one sentence

Step 2: add 3 mandatory context blocks

Step 3: specify output format as a template

Step 4: validate and save into a prompt library

Editorial note: prompts are not chat, they are specs

Practical case: marketing copy workflow

Situation

Improved prompt

Result

Key takeaway

Core execution summary

FAQ

Q1. Doesn't a longer prompt slow us down?

Q2. Should prompts be in English instead of Korean?

Q3. How do we measure prompt quality?

Related reads

prompt-engineering Posts

Practical Guide to Prompt Quality Improvement: A 4-Step Checklist to Cut Re-prompts by 50%