I was debugging a prompt the other day. You know the kind - starts simple, grows into a monster. Later when troubleshooting the LLM traces I’m discovering random [undefined] strings and extra whitespaces that somehow snuck into the prompt, and I’m thinking: “This is insane. I’m a grown developer and these bugs are completely invisible until runtime.”

The prompt looked something like this mess:

Classic. Looks reasonable until you realize the data contains backticks, or someone passes null for context, or the examples array is empty but you still get that dangling newline. Then you’re escaping backticks inside template literals and questioning your life choices.

This pattern repeats everywhere in any codebase. Simple prompts that evolve into complex, conditional monsters. String concatenation with careful spacing. Manual escaping. Zero type safety. No linting. It works until it doesn’t, and when it breaks, debugging is painful.

Building a Custom Solution

Initially, we tried building a simple templating language. Something clean that could live inside JavaScript without the string concatenation nightmare. The syntax used template literals with conditional helpers:

The t.when() helper would remove entire lines if the condition was false. The library automatically handled whitespace and indentation, which was nice.

It worked. Sort of.

The tooling was better than raw string concatenation but still limited compared to what we were used to elsewhere. While we had basic TypeScript support for the template variables, the conditional logic and template structure weren’t as well understood by the type system. Refactoring was manual work. The syntax highlighting was basic at best.

We were solving the string concatenation problem but the development experience still felt disconnected from the rest of our workflow. And honestly, the syntax was strange - it worked but felt like we were building our own mini-language instead of leveraging existing tools.

Enter JSX

JSX wasn’t an obvious choice for prompt engineering. But when you step back and think about what we’re actually doing - building structured documents with conditional content and dynamic data - it starts making sense.

React components solve these exact problems. Conditional rendering is built-in. Dynamic content gets proper escaping automatically. TypeScript understands everything. Your editor helps you. Linters catch errors before runtime.

More importantly, JSX is composable in ways string templates never are. You can build complex prompts from simpler components. Share common patterns. Extract reusable pieces.

So React Prompt Kit was born. That same problematic prompt becomes:

The conditional logic is clear. The structure is obvious. TypeScript knows exactly what’s happening at every step.

Semantic Components and Future-Proofing

The semantic components approach solves a problem that’s not immediately obvious but becomes critical at scale. Those <Instruction>, <Task>, <Data> tags aren’t just cleaner syntax - they’re abstractions over the actual formatting.

Right now they render as simple XML tags. But different LLMs respond better to different formatting approaches. Some prefer XML structure, others work better with markdown sections, still others might expect YAML front-matter.

With semantic components, we can adapt the output format based on the target model without changing application code. Your <Task> component stays semantic and readable, but it might render as <task> for Claude, ## Task for GPT models, or something entirely different for future systems.

This isn’t theoretical. We’ve already seen how different models respond to different prompt structures. As the ecosystem evolves, this abstraction layer becomes increasingly valuable.

Beyond Developer Experience

The real insight goes beyond just making prompts more maintainable. It’s about treating prompt engineering as a first-class development discipline.

String concatenation worked when prompts were simple and LLM integrations were experimental. But as AI features become core product functionality, we need the same engineering rigor we apply everywhere else. Version control that actually tracks meaningful changes. Code reviews that focus on logic rather than syntax. Refactoring tools that work reliably.

JSX gives us all of that. Not because JSX is magic, but because it plugs into existing tooling ecosystems that solve these problems well.

The Practical Reality

React Prompt Kit is still small and focused. It solves specific problems without trying to be a complete framework. The goal isn’t to replace every string template in your codebase - it’s to provide a better approach for complex, dynamic prompts that matter to your application.

If you’re writing simple, static prompts, stick with strings. But if you’re building sophisticated AI features with conditional logic, dynamic content, and maintainable code structure, the JSX approach starts making practical sense.

The React ecosystem has spent years solving problems around component composition, type safety, and developer tooling. Why not leverage that investment for text generation?

We’re past the experimental phase of LLM integration. The patterns that scale for complex UIs also scale for complex prompts.

---

React Prompt Kit is open source if you want to explore this approach. The ideas matter more than the specific implementation.