R0020/2026-03-25/Q003/SRC03/E01¶
Industry practitioners recommend imperative language and treating prompts like contracts
URL: https://medium.com/@mjgmario/prompt-engineering-basics-2026-93aba4dc32b1 (and search synthesis)
Extract¶
Industry guidance on imperative constraints:
Imperative language advocated: "Be strict and explicit, using strong language like 'must' to emphasize what is required." An imperative prompt tells the model "you are commissioning an output under constraints."
Contract-style prompts: "Treat prompts like contracts: a clear definition of what you want, what information the model is allowed to use, what constraints it must respect, the exact shape of the output you expect, and how the result should be checked."
Pattern: directive + constraints + format. "It works well if you force the model to follow a strong template and include the constraints you care about."
Caution on overuse: "Too many constraints can overwhelm the model, causing it to ignore some, so it's important to limit the number of constraints and focus on the most important ones."
Relevance to Hypotheses¶
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Supports | Industry actively recommends imperative language |
| H2 | Contradicts | Explicit discussion of constraint design |
| H3 | Supports | Notes that excessive constraints can be counterproductive |
Context¶
The "prompts as contracts" framing is notable — it elevates prompt design from casual instruction to formal specification. The caution about constraint overload is also significant: it suggests that while imperative constraints are recommended, there are diminishing returns and potential negative effects from over-constraining.
Notes¶
This evidence synthesizes findings from multiple industry sources encountered during the search process. The consistent theme is that imperative language is recommended but with awareness of its limitations.