Examples that teach the format

Why this matters

Three demonstrations make this a few-shot exercise, not a one-shot exercise. A model can imitate their punctuation while still misunderstanding a complaint. Hold back one email until you have written the format rules, then test an ambiguous case as well as the easy one.

Before you start

Materials are free. External tools may require an adult account, credits, regional eligibility or a paid plan. Check current terms before using them. Do not paste passwords, API keys, private messages or other people’s personal data. No model runs locally or downloads automatically on this platform.

Your illustrated field guide

Conceptual illustration, not a provider screenshot. Artwork is AI-generated; instructional labels are authored text.

Start with fictional input

Email 1: My parcel was due Monday. It is Wednesday and nothing arrived. → Summary: Delivery — parcel two days late.
Email 2: The receipt shows $18 but my card was charged $23. → Summary: Billing — charged $5 above receipt.
Email 3: The lid cracked on first use. → Summary: Product — lid cracked on first use.
Held-out email: I paid for two notebooks; the parcel contained one.

Copy and adapt this prompt

Learn the summary format from the three labelled examples. Summarize only the held-out email as “Summary: Category — one factual issue.” Use Delivery, Billing, Product or Needs review. Do not invent a cause, remedy or refund.
[Paste examples and held-out email.]

Worked reference—not proof of correctness

Acceptable held-out result: Summary: Delivery — one of two paid notebooks missing. “Billing — customer charged twice” is not supported: the complaint concerns a missing item, not two payments.

Five practical steps

1. Prepare the demonstrations

   Copy the first three input/output pairs and name the allowed categories.

2. Hold one case back

   Keep the notebook email out of the demonstrations; write your own expected summary before querying.

3. Run the few-shot prompt

   Compare its output with your reference on category, issue, prefix and invented facts.

4. Try ambiguity

   Replace the held-out email with “It happened again.” A safe result asks for review rather than inventing a specific issue.

5. Refine one example

   If the notebook case fails, add a missing-item example and test a new held-out email, not the same one only.

Test your result

• The held-out summary captures one missing notebook without claiming a duplicate payment.
• The ambiguous email receives Needs review or a clarification, not invented details.
• The exact prefix, category separator and one-issue rule remain consistent across three new tests.

Mistakes to watch for

• Evaluating only on examples already shown to the model.
• Calling formatting consistency evidence of factual accuracy.

Offline / no-key route

Classify the four emails on paper, then ask a partner to infer your formatting rule from the first three.

Reflect

What changed when you improved the examples: the category decision, the formatting, or both?

Self-reported practice is not independent assessment or a qualification. Browse all 50 guides · Choose a tool