Workflows

Achtung

Output without a schema. Symptom: Looks fine on the first test; a colleague gets a different format a week later and complains. Cause: The prompt says what to produce but not in which shape. Models vary across runs in length, ordering, bullet style. Fix: Spell out the output schema in the prompt as a list of sections or a sample table. If applicable, enable document output — .docx/.xlsx enforces a fixed structure.

Achtung

Too many steps in a row. Symptom: Steps 1-3 are usable; from step 5 onward the topic drifts or variables from step 2 are ignored in step 6. Cause: Each step receives the output of the previous steps as context. Past 6+ steps the context grows long and the model loses the original task. Fix: Keep workflows to 3-4 steps max. If you need more: split into two workflows — the second takes the first's result as a file input.

Achtung

Wrong granularity — either too specific or too generic. Symptom A: The workflow works only for one customer / one product — the second use case requires rebuilding it. Symptom B: The workflow is so generic that you end up retyping half the prompt on every run anyway. Cause: During design, the axis of variation was never decided. Should the workflow vary across roles? Across departments? Across tones? Fix: Before building, write down: "N people will run this workflow. What changes per run?" — that becomes the variable list. Everything else stays hard-coded in the prompt.

Achtung

File upload without a format convention. Symptom: The requirement note is sometimes a PDF, sometimes an email, sometimes a whiteboard photo — results swing wildly. Cause: The prompt implicitly expects a specific input format but never says so. Fix: State explicitly in the prompt what the uploaded file contains and how it looks — e.g. "The uploaded document contains bullet points on the requirements, half a page to one page, English". If the format is unclear, disable file upload and use a text-block variable instead.