-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 548
Prompt abstraction #3862
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Prompt abstraction #3862
Changes from 23 commits
bec6122
ed20aa5
07771be
5e51696
4ee96c3
6959830
de61436
a37b84e
c3bc6d5
b5ed4ce
5d467f7
f2b31b1
458e0bf
a7d8765
2a491d7
3b4b624
b4f3cf8
854f721
d57edc9
93090f4
15782b1
7852930
2a76eae
2748ff0
cc5a30f
02b72a7
c6f5c1a
43e255c
8f0a17f
f651a25
c7850bc
01292e2
efd7856
9ef3f27
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@ | ||
# ZenML Prompt Abstraction: Learnings and Vision | ||
|
||
Based on analysis of the prompt abstraction feature and working with ZenML's architecture, here are key insights and learnings for ZenML's evolution into a leading LLMOps platform. | ||
|
||
## **Key Learnings from Prompt Implementation** | ||
|
||
### **1. The Complexity of Prompt Management** | ||
|
||
**What I Learned:** | ||
- Prompts are deceptively simple but operationally complex | ||
- They exist at multiple abstraction levels: templates, instances, variants, evaluations | ||
- The lifecycle is non-linear: create → test → iterate → compare → deploy → monitor → drift | ||
|
||
**Implementation Challenge:** | ||
```python | ||
# This looks simple... | ||
prompt = Prompt(template="Answer: {question}") | ||
|
||
# But operationally requires: | ||
# - Version management | ||
# - A/B testing infrastructure | ||
# - Performance tracking | ||
# - Lineage tracking | ||
# - Rollback capabilities | ||
# - Multi-model evaluation | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **2. ZenML Philosophy vs. LLMOps Reality** | ||
|
||
**ZenML's Core Strength (MLOps):** | ||
- "Everything is a pipeline step" | ||
- Artifacts are immutable and versioned | ||
- Reproducible, traceable workflows | ||
|
||
**LLMOps Challenge:** | ||
- Prompts are **both** code and data | ||
- Need real-time iteration (not just batch processing) | ||
- Require human-in-the-loop validation | ||
- Performance is subjective and context-dependent | ||
|
||
**The Tension:** | ||
```python | ||
# ZenML way (good for MLOps): | ||
@step | ||
def evaluate_prompt(prompt: Prompt, dataset: Dataset) -> Metrics: | ||
# Batch evaluation, reproducible | ||
|
||
# LLMOps reality (also needed): | ||
def interactive_prompt_playground(prompt: Prompt): | ||
# Real-time testing, human feedback | ||
# Doesn't fit pipeline paradigm well | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **3. Artifacts vs. Entities Dilemma** | ||
|
||
**What We Discovered:** | ||
The current implementation suffers from **identity crisis**: | ||
|
||
- **As Artifacts**: Immutable, versioned, pipeline-native ✅ | ||
- **As Entities**: Need CRUD operations, real-time updates ❌ | ||
|
||
**Better Approach:** | ||
```python | ||
# Prompt Templates = Entities (mutable, managed) | ||
class PromptTemplate(BaseEntity): | ||
template: str | ||
metadata: Dict[str, Any] | ||
|
||
# Prompt Instances = Artifacts (immutable, versioned) | ||
class PromptInstance(BaseArtifact): | ||
template_id: UUID | ||
variables: Dict[str, Any] | ||
formatted_text: str | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## **What Would Be Done Differently** | ||
|
||
### **1. Embrace the Dual Nature** | ||
|
||
**Current Problem:** Trying to force prompts into pure artifact model | ||
**Better Solution:** | ||
```python | ||
# Management Layer (Entity-like) | ||
@step | ||
def create_prompt_template(template: str) -> PromptTemplate: | ||
# Lives in ZenML server, has CRUD operations | ||
|
||
# Execution Layer (Artifact-like) | ||
@step | ||
def instantiate_prompt(template: PromptTemplate, **vars) -> PromptInstance: | ||
# Immutable, versioned, pipeline-native | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **2. Built-in Evaluation Framework** | ||
|
||
**Current:** Examples show manual evaluation steps | ||
**Better:** Native evaluation infrastructure: | ||
|
||
```python | ||
@prompt_evaluator(metrics=["accuracy", "relevance", "safety"]) | ||
def evaluate_qa_prompt(prompt: PromptInstance, ground_truth: Dataset): | ||
# Auto-tracked, comparable across experiments | ||
|
||
@pipeline | ||
def prompt_optimization_pipeline(): | ||
variants = generate_prompt_variants(base_template) | ||
results = evaluate_variants_parallel(variants) # Built-in parallelization | ||
best_prompt = select_optimal_variant(results) | ||
deploy_prompt(best_prompt) # Integrated deployment | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **3. Context-Aware Prompt Management** | ||
|
||
**Current:** Static prompt templates | ||
**Better:** Dynamic, context-aware prompts: | ||
|
||
```python | ||
class ContextualPrompt(BaseModel): | ||
base_template: str | ||
context_adapters: List[ContextAdapter] | ||
|
||
def adapt_for_context(self, context: Context) -> str: | ||
# Domain adaptation, user personalization, etc. | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## **Vision for ZenML as Leading LLMOps Platform** | ||
|
||
### **1. Prompt-Native Architecture** | ||
|
||
**What This Means:** | ||
- Prompts are first-class citizens, not afterthoughts | ||
- Native prompt versioning, not generic artifact versioning | ||
- Built-in prompt evaluation, not custom step implementations | ||
|
||
**Implementation:** | ||
```python | ||
# Native prompt pipeline decorator | ||
@prompt_pipeline | ||
def optimize_customer_service_prompts(): | ||
# Auto-handles prompt-specific concerns: | ||
# - A/B testing | ||
# - Human evaluation collection | ||
# - Performance monitoring | ||
# - Automatic rollback on degradation | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **2. Multi-Modal Prompt Management** | ||
|
||
**Beyond Text:** | ||
```python | ||
class MultiModalPrompt(BaseModel): | ||
text_component: str | ||
image_components: List[ImagePrompt] | ||
audio_components: List[AudioPrompt] | ||
|
||
# Unified evaluation across modalities | ||
def evaluate_multimodal_performance(self, test_cases: MultiModalDataset): | ||
# Cross-modal consistency checking | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **3. Production-Ready LLMOps Features** | ||
|
||
**What's Missing (but needed for leadership):** | ||
|
||
```python | ||
# 1. Prompt Drift Detection | ||
@step | ||
def detect_prompt_drift( | ||
current_prompt: PromptInstance, | ||
production_logs: ConversationLogs | ||
) -> DriftReport: | ||
# Automatic detection of performance degradation | ||
|
||
# 2. Prompt Security & Safety | ||
@step | ||
def validate_prompt_safety(prompt: PromptInstance) -> SafetyReport: | ||
# Built-in jailbreak detection, bias checking | ||
|
||
# 3. Cost Optimization | ||
@step | ||
def optimize_prompt_cost( | ||
prompt: PromptInstance, | ||
performance_threshold: float | ||
) -> OptimizedPrompt: | ||
# Automatic prompt compression while maintaining quality | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **4. Human-in-the-Loop Integration** | ||
|
||
**Current Gap:** No native human feedback integration | ||
**Vision:** | ||
```python | ||
@human_evaluation_step | ||
def collect_human_feedback( | ||
prompt_responses: List[Response] | ||
) -> HumanFeedback: | ||
# Integrated UI for human evaluation | ||
# Automatic feedback aggregation | ||
# Bias detection in human evaluations | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## **Specific Recommendations for ZenML Leadership** | ||
|
||
### **1. Architectural Changes** | ||
|
||
**Immediate (6 months):** | ||
- Split prompt management into Template (entity) + Instance (artifact) | ||
- Native prompt evaluation framework | ||
- Built-in A/B testing infrastructure | ||
|
||
**Medium-term (1 year):** | ||
- Multi-modal prompt support | ||
- Prompt drift detection | ||
- Cost optimization tools | ||
|
||
**Long-term (2+ years):** | ||
- AI-assisted prompt optimization | ||
- Cross-model prompt portability | ||
- Prompt marketplace/sharing | ||
|
||
### **2. Developer Experience** | ||
|
||
**What Would Make ZenML the Go-To LLMOps Platform:** | ||
|
||
```python | ||
# This should be possible with 5 lines of code: | ||
from zenml.llmops import PromptOptimizer | ||
|
||
optimizer = PromptOptimizer( | ||
base_template="Summarize: {text}", | ||
evaluation_dataset=my_dataset, | ||
target_metrics=["accuracy", "conciseness"] | ||
) | ||
|
||
best_prompt = optimizer.optimize() # Handles everything automatically | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### **3. Integration Ecosystem** | ||
|
||
**Missing Pieces:** | ||
- Native LangChain/LlamaIndex integration | ||
- Built-in vector database connectors | ||
- Prompt sharing/marketplace | ||
- Model provider abstractions | ||
|
||
## **Core Insight: The Prompt Paradox** | ||
|
||
**The Challenge:** Prompts are simultaneously: | ||
- **Engineering artifacts** (need versioning, testing, deployment) | ||
- **Creative content** (need iteration, human judgment, contextual adaptation) | ||
- **Business logic** (need governance, compliance, performance monitoring) | ||
|
||
**ZenML's Opportunity:** Be the first platform to solve this paradox elegantly by: | ||
1. Embracing the complexity rather than oversimplifying | ||
2. Building prompt-native infrastructure, not generic artifact management | ||
3. Integrating human feedback as a first-class citizen | ||
4. Providing end-to-end prompt lifecycle management | ||
|
||
## **Critical Review Summary** | ||
|
||
### **Current Implementation Issues:** | ||
- **Architectural Inconsistency**: Can't decide if prompts are entities or artifacts | ||
- **Overcomplicated Core Class**: 434 lines of business logic in `Prompt` class | ||
- **Violation of ZenML Philosophy**: Logic that should be in steps is in the core class | ||
- **Poor Server Integration**: Generic artifact handling instead of prompt-specific logic | ||
|
||
### **Rating: 4/10** - Needs significant refactoring | ||
|
||
**Strengths:** | ||
- Good conceptual foundation | ||
- Comprehensive examples | ||
- Solid utility functions | ||
|
||
**Critical Issues:** | ||
- Overcomplicated core class | ||
- Architectural inconsistency | ||
- Security vulnerabilities | ||
- Poor separation of concerns | ||
|
||
## **Conclusion** | ||
|
||
The current implementation is a good start, but to become the **leading LLMOps platform**, ZenML needs to think bigger and solve the unique challenges of prompt management, not just apply traditional MLOps patterns to a fundamentally different problem. | ||
|
||
The path forward requires: | ||
1. **Architectural clarity** - Choose entity vs artifact approach and stick to it | ||
2. **Prompt-native features** - Build for LLMOps, not generic MLOps | ||
3. **Human-in-the-loop integration** - Essential for prompt workflows | ||
4. **Production-ready tooling** - Drift detection, safety validation, cost optimization | ||
|
||
ZenML has the opportunity to define the LLMOps category the same way it helped define MLOps, but only if it embraces the unique challenges of prompt management rather than trying to force them into existing MLOps patterns. |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ | ||
--- | ||
description: Simple prompt engineering with ZenML - version control, A/B testing, and dashboard visualization. | ||
icon: edit | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# Prompt Engineering | ||
|
||
ZenML's prompt engineering focuses on the three things teams actually need: **simple versioning**, **A/B testing**, and **dashboard visualization**. | ||
|
||
## Quick Start | ||
|
||
1. **Run the example**: | ||
```bash | ||
cd examples/prompt_engineering | ||
python run_simple_comparison.py | ||
``` | ||
|
||
2. **Check your dashboard** to see prompt artifacts with rich visualizations | ||
|
||
## Core Features | ||
|
||
### Git-like Versioning | ||
```python | ||
prompt_v1 = Prompt(template="Answer: {question}", version="1.0") | ||
prompt_v2 = Prompt(template="Detailed answer: {question}", version="2.0") | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### A/B Testing | ||
```python | ||
# Pipeline automatically compares versions and determines winner | ||
result = simple_prompt_comparison() | ||
print(f"Winner: {result['winner']}") | ||
``` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Not sure how this is implemented in the code, but it seems a bit magic to me :) like the two prompts aren't even passed in as arguments, so what's happening here? |
||
|
||
### Dashboard Integration | ||
- Syntax-highlighted templates | ||
- Variable tables and validation | ||
- Version tracking across runs | ||
- Side-by-side comparisons | ||
|
||
## Why This Approach? | ||
|
||
User research shows teams with millions of daily requests use **simple Git-based versioning**, not complex management systems. This approach focuses on what actually works in production. | ||
|
||
|
||
## Documentation | ||
|
||
* [Quick Start](quick-start.md) - Working example walkthrough | ||
* [Understanding Prompt Management](understanding-prompt-management.md) - Research and philosophy | ||
* [Best Practices](best-practices.md) - Production guidance | ||
|
||
## Example Structure | ||
|
||
The `examples/prompt_engineering/` directory demonstrates proper organization: | ||
- `pipelines/` - Pipeline definitions | ||
- `steps/` - Individual step implementations | ||
- `utils/` - Helper functions | ||
- Clean separation of concerns | ||
|
||
Start with the quick start example to see all features in action. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.