Students engineer the prompt that produces an A-level essay, and are graded on the prompt as well as the output.
The paradox
To “cheat” with AI under this assignment, a student has to understand the subject deeply enough to teach the model how to write about it. Prompt quality is the graded artifact. The essay is the receipt.
FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
Worked example: the Euthyphro dilemma
The same philosophy assignment, as a pasted brief and as an engineered prompt.
D
Basic promptThe assignment, pasted. Not an F, because they read it.
In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Explain the dilemma in your own words using a concrete moral example of your choosing. Clearly lay out the logical structure, identifying the key premises that lead to the conclusion. Be sure to explain why each horn of the dilemma presents a problem for divine command theory. Your essay should be 4-6 pages double spaced 12 point font excluding any references. You do not need any references.
B+
Engineered promptFirst iteration. Shows understanding of structure, premises, and rigor.
Write a 4-6 page (double spaced 12 point font) philosophical essay analyzing the Euthyphro Dilemma. Follow these precise specifications:
CORE PHILOSOPHICAL STRUCTURE:
Present the dilemma as a destructive dilemma with this logical form:
• Either (A) actions are good because God commands them, OR (B) God commands them because they are good
• If (A), then morality is arbitrary and could change based on divine whim
• If (B), then morality exists independently of God, making divine command theory false
• Therefore, divine command theory faces a fatal problem either way
PREMISE PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS:
For EACH premise you identify:
• STATE the premise clearly (label as P1, P2, etc.)
• ARGUE for why we should accept this premise as true
• PROVIDE evidence or reasoning that supports it
• ACKNOWLEDGE if you will later refute it (but still present the strongest case first)
ORIGINAL EXAMPLE REQUIREMENT:
DO NOT use any examples mentioned in the assignment (murder, truth-telling, promise-keeping). Create your own concrete moral example. Consider: charitable giving, respect for parents, protecting the innocent, sharing resources, showing gratitude, or develop something entirely different.
TERMINOLOGY CONSISTENCY:
• Choose one formulation (e.g., "God" not alternating with "the divine" or "deity")
• Define technical terms immediately upon first use
• Include definitions for: divine command theory, moral realism, arbitrary, metaphysical vs. epistemological
LOGICAL RIGOR:
• Use logical connectives ONLY when there's actual logical entailment
• "It follows that" requires deductive consequence
• Use "This suggests" for inductive reasoning
• Never use philosophical connectives merely as transitions
CRITICAL ANALYSIS SECTION:
Address this escape attempt: "God commands based on His perfectly good nature"
• First, present this objection in its strongest form
• Then demonstrate why it merely relocates the problem
• Show this is the same dilemma at a different level
What makes the better prompt better
Each requirement is something the student had to understand first.
Detailed structure requirements
The engineered prompt specifies the exact logical form, premise labeling (P1, P2, and so on), and argument flow. Writing it requires understanding formal argumentation, not just the topic.
Original example requirement
Common examples are prohibited, so the student has to understand the principle well enough to invent a novel illustration.
Critical-analysis depth
The prompt demands the strongest form of the 'perfectly good nature' objection and an explanation of why it relocates the dilemma rather than escaping it.
Logical rigor standards
It distinguishes deductive from inductive connectives and bans using philosophical phrases as mere transitions. You cannot specify that without knowing the difference.
Subject mastery on display
The prompt itself demonstrates understanding of divine command theory, moral realism, and the metaphysical versus epistemological reading of the dilemma.
Grading the prompt
An illustrative rubric for the prompt itself.
D
Minimal effort
The student pasted the assignment verbatim. They read it, so it is not an F, but there is no evidence of prompt-engineering understanding.
C
Basic structure
Some formatting and basic requirements were added. The student knows prompts need structure but shows little depth or specificity.
B+
Good first iteration
Logical structure, premise requirements, and terminology consistency are all specified. This is where the engineered example sits: a solid foundation with room to refine.
A
Excellent prompt
Adds explanations of each premise, historical context, multiple philosophical perspectives, citation requirements, and iterative-refinement instructions. Mastery of both the subject and the craft.
In practice students refine the prompt over several iterations and document each change. That documentation is what gets verified.
What students learn
Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation: the top of the taxonomy.
Deep subject mastery, because specifying accurate requirements demands it
Understanding of academic structure and argumentation
Critical evaluation skills for judging output quality
Metacognitive awareness of what good reasoning looks like
Precise technical communication
Iterative refinement and attention to detail
Adapting any assignment
Five steps for an instructor.
1
Start with an existing assignment
Take any essay or problem-solving task you already set.
2
Convert it to a prompt-engineering task
Students must write a prompt that would generate an A-level response.
3
Require documentation
Students explain their design choices and why each one improves the output.
4
Grade both components
Assess the prompt and the resulting output. The prompt is the primary artifact.
5
Iterate
Students refine prompts against the output they get, and keep the revision history. That history is the authorship evidence.
A second example: history class
The same move works in any discipline.
TRADITIONAL
Write an essay on the causes of World War I.
FLIPPED
Create a prompt that will generate an A-level essay analyzing the interconnected causes of World War I, demonstrating understanding of historiographical debates, primary-source integration, and causal complexity.
To write that prompt the student must supply historical context, define the historiographical schools, give examples of strong arguments, and specify citation formats. All of it requires subject mastery.
HOW IT MEETS VERIFICATION
The prompt is the authorship evidence.
ENGINE RULE
A prompt-engineering submission is never scored against an essay-writing baseline. The engine routes it to a prompt-specific baseline built from the student’s own prompts, iterations, critiques, and rationale. In this reference app, prompt mode abstains with the flag PROMPT_BASELINE_REQUIRED because no such baseline exists yet. That abstention is the correct answer, not a gap.