Asking Questions the Right Way: A Multi-Agent Conversational System for Prompt Formulation in Complex Task Resolution
Authors: B. Sankar, Pawni Yadav, Srinidhi Ranjini Girish, Amogh A. S
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are integral to complex intellectual tasks, yet output quality remains constrained by user-provided prompts. Iterative multi-turn prompting often leads to context degradation and diminishing cognitive returns. We present PAWNI (Prompt Architecture Wizard using Neural Intelligence), an agentic conversational interface of eight agents that transforms unstructured queries into structured prompts through guided question-and-answer dialogue informed by a self-evolving knowledge base. Rather than optimising the model's response, PAWNI optimises the question itself by front-loading intent clarification. We also propose a three-tier framework of 18 prompt elements across Essential, Enhancement, and Elevation categories. To evaluate system behaviour and validate a measurement protocol, we conducted an exploratory within-subjects study (N=4) across four complex tasks, integrating 32-channel EEG, NASA-TLX workload, and behavioural metrics. Participants produced more structurally complete prompts with PAWNI (42% to 91% of assessed elements), rated LLM outputs higher across all quality dimensions, and reported lower workload (39.6 vs. 21.7 NASA-TLX). Every participant reached satisfactory output in a single turn, compared to 1-12 turns unaided. While effect sizes are unstable due to sample size, direction consistency supports the hypothesis that optimising prompt formulation front-end is a critical lever for human-AI collaboration.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.
LLM agents in interactive environments are highly sensitive to their prompts, yet prompt engineering remains a manual, task-specific process. We introduce an automated prompt optimization framework for LLM agents that decomposes the observation-to-action pipeline into a goal-conditioned descriptor agent and an action selection agent, and iteratively refines each module's prompt through an LLM-driven evolutionary loop guided by environment returns. We propose a behavior analyzer to attribute episode outcomes to specific prompt components, and a mutator to propose targeted revisions to the prompt, before validating them through environment rollouts. We evaluate on all five BabyAI tasks in the BALROG benchmark, comparing our pipeline against BALROG's RobustCoTAgent under both plain and guided prompt initializations. Optimization improves performance consistently across tasks and conditions, without requiring updates to the model weights. On PutNext, a multi-step coordination task where the RobustCoTAgent achieves 0% success, our framework reaches up to 72.5% success rate using the same underlying LLM with optimized prompts. These results suggest that a multi-agent framework, combined with automatic prompt optimization, enhances LLMs without the need for fine-tuning or extensive human supervision.
LLM agents are becoming central to information retrieval: they issue retrieval queries, synthesize answers, and increasingly serve as judges for IR evaluation. Improving the prompts that control these agents is an optimization problem, but in applied IR settings it often looks less like blind search and more like debugging. Engineers need to know which behavior failed, which nearby behavior still worked, what distinguishes the two, and whether a prompt edit improves held-out quality without introducing regressions. We present Contrastive Reflection, an iterative prompt-optimization framework for agentic IR workflows. The framework starts from a task-centric quality definition: QA agents expose retrieval or reasoning traces, and grading agents expose dimension-level scores and rationales. These structured traces are used to identify error-anchored behavioral slices, add nearby successful examples from the same region, and ask a Teacher LLM to propose a targeted prompt edit. Candidate edits are accepted only when validation performance improves, optionally subject to regression checks. We instantiate the framework with a tree-based slice selector, but the contribution is the contrastive reflection loop rather than the tree itself. On a public HotpotQA retrieval-augmented QA setup, one tree-selected contrastive repair improves held-out exact-match accuracy from 51.4% to 60.4%. Failure-only and random-evidence variants improve less and break more previously correct examples. A light instruction-only comparison places the method near modern prompt optimizers: MIPROv2 reaches 59.4% and GEPA 57.0%. The result is an interpretable optimization loop for IR agents, aimed at making prompt repair more inspectable and validation-driven.