Many teams wrongly focus on the latest models and frameworks. True improvement comes from classic product development: talking to users, preparing better data, optimizing workflows, and writing better prompts.

People struggle with AI prompts because the model lacks background on their goals and progress. The solution is 'Context Engineering': creating an environment where the AI continuously accumulates user-specific information, materials, and intent, reducing the need for constant prompt tweaking.

Don't ask an LLM to perform initial error analysis; it lacks the product context to spot subtle failures. Instead, have a human expert write detailed, freeform notes ("open codes"). Then, leverage an LLM's strength in synthesis to automatically categorize those hundreds of human-written notes into actionable failure themes ("axial codes").

A key metric for AI coding agent performance is real-time sentiment analysis of user prompts. By measuring whether users say 'fantastic job' or 'this is not what I wanted,' teams get an immediate signal of the agent's comprehension and effectiveness, which is more telling than lagging indicators like bug counts.

Many AI tools expose the model's reasoning before generating an answer. Reading this internal monologue is a powerful debugging technique. It reveals how the AI is interpreting your instructions, allowing you to quickly identify misunderstandings and improve the clarity of your prompts for better results.

A major hurdle in AI adoption is not the technology's capability but the user's inability to prompt effectively. When presented with a natural language interface, many users don't know how to ask for what they want, leading to poor results and abandonment, highlighting the need for prompt guidance.

The common mistake in building AI evals is jumping straight to writing automated tests. The correct first step is a manual process called "error analysis" or "open coding," where a product expert reviews real user interaction logs to understand what's actually going wrong. This grounds your entire evaluation process in reality.

Fine-tuning an AI model is most effective when you use high-signal data. The best source for this is the set of difficult examples where your system consistently fails. The processes of error analysis and evaluation naturally curate this valuable dataset, making fine-tuning a logical and powerful next step after prompt engineering.

Instead of seeking a "magical system" for AI quality, the most effective starting point is a manual process called error analysis. This involves spending a few hours reading through ~100 random user interactions, taking simple notes on failures, and then categorizing those notes to identify the most common problems.