arXiv:2611.09896v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The practice of instructing large language models (LLMs) through natural-language prompts has, in the span of a few years, migrated from an interactive curiosity to a load-bearing component of production software. Yet the vocabulary, tooling, and mental models of the field remain anchored in its interactive origins: we still speak of "prompt engineering" as though the crafting of a single well-worded instruction were the central problem. This paper argues for a categorical distinction. Prompt engineering, we contend, is an interaction technique - a human-computer interaction skill for eliciting desired behavior from a model in a conversational or exploratory setting. Programmatic prompting, by contrast, is an engineering discipline governing the behavioral interface between software systems and language models: the construction, composition, versioning, testing, and maintenance of prompts as first-class software artifacts embedded in larger systems. Conflating the two has produced brittle applications, unrepeatable evaluations, and an accumulation of prompt debt. We make three contributions: (1) a definition of programmatic prompting; (2) a systematic differentiation of programmatic prompting from prompt engineering, prompt tuning, fine-tuning, and general LLM application development; and (3) an account of prompt debt that distinguishes the self-admitted debt measurable in code from the silent debt that surfaces only as incidents, and identifies its economic cause. Our thesis is simple to state and consequential to accept: prompt engineering is an interaction technique; programmatic prompting is an engineering discipline.
Continue to arXiv Software Engineering →You are being forwarded in 6s — stay on this page