I've written 365+ prompts for enterprise use and the pattern is clear: structured prompts with boring, predictable formatting outperform creative or "clever" prompts every single time especially for professional settings.
What do I mean by structure:
Every prompt I've built follows the same skeleton: - Who are you ? (role/context) - What do you need? (specific task) - Constraints (what's in/out of scope) - Output format (exactly how you want it delivered)
Why "creative" prompts fail in enterprise:
They're not repeatable : If a clever prompt works for me but my colleague can't modify it for their use case, it's useless at scale.
They're hard to debug : When a structured prompt gives bad output, you can identify which section needs fixing. When a creative prompt fails, you're starting from scratch.
They don't transfer across models : A prompt that exploits a specific model's quirks breaks when you switch from GPT-4.1 to Claude to Copilot. Structure-based prompts transfer cleanly.
They can't be governed : IT and compliance teams need to review and approve prompt templates. "Just ask it creatively" isn't a policy.
The boring truth about prompt engineering:
It's not engineering and it's not an art. It's technical writing. The same skills that make good documentation make good prompts: clarity, specificity, structure, and knowing your audience.
The best prompt engineers I've met aren't AI researchers they're former technical writers, business analysts, and process designers.
Am I wrong to push for standardization over creativity?
[link] [comments]