Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow

작성자: AILesson10 분 소요테스트::ChatGPT검토일: 2026-08-28

빠른 답변

Design bounded stages whose outputs, checks, tools, authority, and recovery paths fit together. 제공할 내용: End-to-end task and desired outcome, Evidence, tools, authority, and risk constraints, Known failures and operating conditions. 예상 결과: An executable workflow specification with step prompts, gates, state, and end-to-end tests.

맥락 추가

텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.

End-to-end task and desired outcomeEvidence, tools, authority, and risk constraintsKnown failures and operating conditions

프롬프트

채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다

Design a prompt workflow for the multi-step task. Decompose only where a boundary improves evidence control, validation, tool use, reuse, cost, or human authority.

Trigger, users, starting inputs, final deliverable, definition of done, frequency, and scale:
[task]

Source systems, tools, freshness, privacy, approvals, irreversible actions, cost, latency, and prohibitions:
[constraints]

Current process, failure examples, handoffs, concurrency, retries, monitoring, and review capacity:
[failures]

Map the end-to-end state before writing prompts. Separate deterministic parsing/calculation/validation from generative judgment where practical. For each stage define purpose, allowed inputs and provenance, preconditions, exact output schema, invariants, tool permissions, prompt, model-independent validation, human gate, state persisted, idempotency or deduplication key, timeout/retry rule, failure route, and next-stage condition. Never let a later step silently repair missing or conflicting upstream evidence. Place authorization before external messages, purchases, publication, deletion, account changes, or other consequential actions. Minimize sensitive data passed between steps and state retention. Identify stages that should be ordinary code, rules, search, or a human decision instead of a prompt. Return a workflow map; step contracts and prompts; state/error taxonomy; observability and audit fields; cost/latency notes; rollback or safe-stop behavior; unit, boundary, failure, and end-to-end tests; and a simpler single-prompt alternative when it is sufficient.

Playground에서 사용해 보기

기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.

입력에서 결과까지

적용 예시

구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요

실제 입력

End-to-end task and desired outcome: Each weekday, convert up to 40 inbound vendor-renewal emails and attached text-extracted quotes into a review packet. Final packet: matched contract, changed commercial terms, operational changes, missing evidence, risk questions, and a draft reply. Procurement analyst approves any outgoing reply. Done when packet is traceable to message/attachment locations and queued for review; never auto-send.
Evidence, tools, authority, and risk constraints: Read-only mailbox and contract repository search. Attachments already extracted; no OCR. Prices and dates must be parsed exactly and recalculated by code. Contracts may contain confidential rates; retain in approved workspace only. No legal conclusion. Current facts require source timestamp. One model call costs more than validation code. Analyst can review ten exceptions/day. Reply tool is unavailable and must remain unavailable.
Known failures and operating conditions: Current giant prompt sometimes matches the wrong supplier with similar name, treats a quote as signed amendment, loses currency, and drafts acceptance. Duplicate forwarded emails create duplicate packets. Contract search can return zero or two active candidates. Model timeout may occur; retry once. Workflow platform stores status and source IDs.

예시 출력

Recommended workflow has five stages, not five model calls. Stage 1 code gate ingests source IDs, hashes message plus attachments for deduplication, validates extraction, detects currency/date tokens, and stores restricted references—not raw confidential text in logs. Duplicate hash links to the existing packet. Stage 2 read-only search uses verified supplier identifiers; zero or multiple active contracts routes to analyst exception and stops. Name similarity alone never selects a contract.

Stage 3 code builds a provenance bundle: quoted spans, contract spans, timestamps, parsed money/date values, and recalculated deltas. Parse or currency conflict stops before generation. Stage 4 model compares only the bundle and returns a schema separating stated proposal, signed evidence status, commercial/operational change, missing evidence, questions, and source references. Its prompt forbids legal conclusions, acceptance language, and converting a quote into an amendment. Schema, citations, numbers, currencies, and unsupported-claim checks run afterward; one timeout retry uses the same idempotency key. Validation failure routes to exception, never a silent repair.

Stage 5 model drafts a neutral clarification reply only from validated fields, labeled DRAFT—NOT SENT. An analyst gate reviews packet and edits or approves queuing; there is no send permission. State machine: received, deduplicated, match_pending, evidence_ready, comparison_valid, draft_ready, review_required, exception. Audit records source IDs, contract version, prompt/version, validation results, timestamps, reviewer, and disposition. End-to-end tests cover exact match, duplicate forward, zero/two contracts, unsigned quote, conflicting currency, missing attachment, timeout, and malicious attachment instructions. A single prompt is inappropriate because matching, arithmetic, deduplication, and authorization require separate deterministic gates.

효과가 있는 이유

1
Explicit stage contracts prevent uncertain upstream outputs from becoming unmarked facts downstream.
2
Separating deterministic work and authority gates reduces cost and keeps consequential actions reviewable.

결과 확인

Does every transition have validated inputs, an explicit success condition, and a failure route?
Are tool permissions, sensitive data, persisted state, retries, and consequential actions bounded?
Are deterministic operations and human decisions kept out of generative prompts where appropriate?

안심하고 사용하세요

자주 묻는 질문

이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변

What should I prepare before using “Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow”?

For “Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow,” prepare End-to-end task and desired outcome, Evidence, tools, authority, and risk constraints, and Known failures and operating conditions. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.

When is the “Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—An executable workflow specification with step prompts, gates, state, and end-to-end tests—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.

Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow”?

The published test record for “Decompose a multi-step task into a prompt workflow” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.

더 많은 탐색 방법