Design
Define purpose, audience, context, output, criteria, sources, assumptions, and verification requirements.
Your task
Create a coherent Prompt Engineering Portfolio based on one bounded, low-risk use case. Demonstrate how you diagnose an under-specified request, redesign it with PCAFE-V, compare outputs using pre-defined criteria, minimize context, build a staged SCOPE workflow, and assign responsibility through PARTNER.
The portfolio must show your process, evidence, evaluation, corrections, and judgment. A collection of prompts without analysis is not sufficient.
Evaluate
Compare outputs with observable criteria and separate fluency or convenience from reliability.
Govern
Protect information, allocate human and AI roles, add review gates, and define escalation and stopping.
Submission goal: Demonstrate a repeatable and responsible prompt-engineering process, not simply one polished generated answer.
Choose an appropriate use case
Use one coherent case across the portfolio where possible. Select a task that is complex enough to benefit from structured prompting but low risk enough for course analysis.
Suitable examples
- Drafting a plain-language summary from supplied public information
- Planning the structure of a low-risk informational document
- Developing options for a synthetic project plan
- Revising a fictional professional message for audience fit
- Organizing supplied non-sensitive notes
- Creating questions for further human investigation
Unsuitable examples
- Diagnosis, treatment, legal rights, investing, or emergency guidance
- Employment, admission, discipline, grading, eligibility, or benefit decisions
- Real confidential, personal, proprietary, privileged, or culturally governed records
- Live security testing, surveillance, transactions, publication, or external actions
- Tasks requiring professional authority you do not possess
Required portfolio components
| Component | Required work | Evidence to include |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Use-case brief | Define the purpose, audience, intended output, boundaries, information classification, success criteria, and reasons the case is suitable. | One-page brief or equivalent structured record |
| 2. Weak-prompt diagnosis | Identify missing purpose, context, audience, format, criteria, sources, verification, assumptions, ambiguity, and information risks. | Original prompt and annotated diagnosis |
| 3. PCAFE-V redesign | Produce a complete, bounded, privacy-aware, and evaluable prompt. Explain every material design choice. | Revised prompt and rationale |
| 4. Output comparison | Compare initial and redesigned outputs using criteria established before judging the results. | Selected output excerpts, comparison matrix, verification, and corrections |
| 5. Context and SCOPE design | Minimize information and decompose the task into stages, source boundaries, intermediate outputs, review gates, and stop conditions. | Context record, SCOPE workflow, and text alternative |
| 6. PARTNER and synthesis | Allocate responsibilities and explain final limitations, residual risk, escalation, human authority, and lessons learned. | PARTNER matrix, final synthesis, and AI-use disclosure |
Required method
- Define
Fix the purpose, audience, output, information boundaries, and evaluation criteria. - Diagnose
Analyze the weak request before attempting to improve it. - Compare
Evaluate initial and revised results using the same criteria and verify important claims. - Integrate
Add SCOPE, PARTNER, corrections, residual risk, and stopping.
Minimum comparison requirements
- Use the same underlying use case for the initial and redesigned prompt.
- Define evaluation criteria before selecting the preferred output.
- Retain enough output evidence for the reader to understand the comparison.
- Identify improvements, regressions, trade-offs, omissions, and remaining uncertainty.
- Verify important factual, source-based, numerical, policy, or technical claims.
- Do not equate longer, more fluent, or better formatted output with greater accuracy.
Required organization and target length
| Section | Suggested length |
|---|---|
| Portfolio overview and use-case brief | 250–350 words |
| Weak-prompt diagnosis | 350–450 words |
| PCAFE-V redesign and rationale | 450–600 words |
| Output comparison, verification, and correction | 550–700 words |
| Context minimization and SCOPE workflow | 450–600 words |
| PARTNER matrix, limitations, and synthesis | 450–600 words |
Title page, references, tables, figure captions, prompt and output appendices, and the AI-use disclosure are excluded from the target word count. Appendices support the analysis but do not replace it.
Prompt and evidence record
Document each AI interaction or supplied record used in the portfolio.
Interaction record
- System, tool, or supplied record
- Date and version, if available
- Purpose
- Exact prompt or instruction
- Information and sources supplied
- Output retained
- Follow-up prompts or changes
Evaluation record
- Pre-defined criteria
- Evidence checked
- Sources used for verification
- Errors and omissions identified
- Corrections made
- Human decisions
- Residual uncertainty and risk
Equivalent participation pathways
Approved AI system
Use an approved system for the bounded case with synthetic, public, supplied, or authorized information.
Supplied records
Use course-provided prompts, outputs, context, source sets, staged workflows, and responsibility scenarios.
Non-AI analysis
Diagnose prompts, predict effects of redesigns, evaluate supplied outputs, and build SCOPE and PARTNER records without live AI.
All pathways are graded using the same rubric. Access to a paid platform, workplace system, account integration, or agent is not required.
AI-use, authorship, and responsible-use requirements
You may
- Use an approved AI system to generate the outputs being analyzed.
- Iterate on prompts as part of the documented experiment.
- Use synthetic, public, supplied, or authorized information.
- Use AI for bounded proofreading if permitted and disclosed.
You may not
- Ask AI to write your diagnosis, evaluation, rationale, responsibility analysis, or final synthesis.
- Upload protected or unauthorized information.
- Fabricate prompts, outputs, verification, sources, or corrections.
- Use connected tools to send, publish, transact, modify, or delete.
- Submit material you cannot explain and defend.
Show the required AI-use disclosure fields
- System or tool used
- Date and version, if available
- Purpose of use
- Information provided
- Prompts and material iterations
- Outputs retained
- Verification performed
- Corrections made
- Human decisions
- Material incorporated into the portfolio
For a non-AI pathway, state that no live generative AI system was used and identify the supplied records analyzed.
Format, accessibility, and submission preparation
Document requirements
- Submit one DOCX or accessible PDF unless Moodle states otherwise.
- Use readable 11- or 12-point text, semantic headings, and page numbers.
- Use consistent citation style and verify references.
- Name the file
LastName_FirstName_COMP327_Assignment2. - Place long prompts and outputs in appendices when appropriate.
Accessibility requirements
- Give tables descriptive headings and column labels.
- Provide a structured text alternative for the SCOPE workflow.
- Do not rely on colour alone.
- Use descriptive link text and sufficient contrast.
- Ensure the submitted PDF is tagged or submit an accessible DOCX.
Assignment resources
Official Moodle due date and time: ____________________