When I tell developers that temperature settings are one of the most important aspects of prompt engineering, they usually look at me like I’m overthinking it.

“Temperature? That’s just the creativity dial, right?”

Wrong. It’s the determinism dial. And getting it right is the difference between AI that ships production code and AI that generates pretty demos that break.

The Problem Nobody Talks About

You’ve probably experienced this:

You give Claude or ChatGPT the same prompt twice. You get completely different outputs.

Sometimes it’s close. Sometimes it’s wildly different. Sometimes one version works perfectly and the other breaks everything.

This isn’t AI being “creative.” This is temperature being too high for the task.

What Temperature Actually Controls

Temperature controls the randomness of token selection during generation.

Low temperature (0.0 - 0.3):

• AI picks the most likely next token
• Output is deterministic and predictable
• Same prompt → same output (mostly)
• Less creative, more reliable

High temperature (0.7 - 1.0):

• AI considers less likely tokens
• Output varies significantly
• Same prompt → different outputs
• More creative, less reliable

Very high temperature (1.0+):

• AI picks from unlikely tokens
• Output becomes unpredictable
• Can produce nonsense
• Only useful for specific creative tasks

Most tools default to 0.7 or 0.8. This is optimized for general conversation, not production code generation.

The SPARC Discovery

When building my SPARC prompt library, I ran into the consistency problem immediately.

The code agent would generate slightly different implementations for the same failing test. Sometimes the solution would pass all tests. Sometimes it would fail edge cases. Sometimes it would introduce bugs.

The prompt was consistent. The architecture was clear. The specifications were detailed.

The temperature was 0.7.

I dropped it to 0.3. Suddenly:

• Same tests → same implementation
• Edge cases handled consistently
• No random variations
• Reproducible debugging

But when I used 0.3 for the UI/UX interpreter (which generates design guidelines), the output became boring and repetitive.

The insight: Different tasks need different temperatures.

The Temperature Matrix

After 3,000+ lines of prompts and hundreds of iterations, here’s what I learned:

Temperature ≤ 0.1: Structured Data

Use for:

• JSON generation
• Version number calculations
• Database queries
• Configuration files
• Any task requiring perfect accuracy

Why: You need zero creativity. One wrong character breaks everything.

SPARC example:

version-manager agent: Temperature ≤ 0.1
Task: Calculate semantic version bump
Input: Current version 1.2.3, added new feature
Output: 1.3.0

Every. Single. Time.

Temperature 0.1 - 0.3: Code Implementation

Use for:

• Writing application code
• Implementing algorithms
• Debugging existing code
• Refactoring for performance

Why: You want reliable, consistent implementations that follow specifications exactly.

SPARC example:

code agent: Temperature ≤ 0.3
Task: Implement function to pass failing test
Same test → Same implementation → Predictable behavior

Temperature 0.3 - 0.5: Technical Writing

Use for:

• Documentation generation
• API specifications
• Architecture descriptions
• Technical explanations

Why: You want clarity and consistency, but some variation in phrasing helps readability.

SPARC example:

docs-writer agent: Temperature 0.3 - 0.5
Task: Generate README from codebase
Consistent structure, varied phrasing

Temperature 0.5 - 0.7: Analysis & Review

Use for:

• Security audits
• Code reviews
• Architectural planning
• System integration analysis

Why: You want thorough analysis that considers multiple angles, but stays focused.

SPARC example:

security-review agent: Temperature ≤ 0.5
Task: Audit code for vulnerabilities
Consistent methodology, thorough coverage

Temperature 0.7 - 1.0: Creative Tasks

Use for:

• UX copy generation
• Marketing content
• Design exploration
• Brainstorming alternatives

Why: You actually want variety and creative solutions.

SPARC example:

ui-ux-interpreter agent: Temperature 0.7 - 0.9
Task: Generate design guidelines
Creative but structured output

Temperature > 1.0: Almost Never

Use for:

• Experimental text generation
• Artistic content
• Deliberately random output

Why: Output becomes too unpredictable for most real work.

The Real-World Impact

Let me show you the actual difference with a real example.

Task: Implement user authentication

Prompt (simplified):

Implement a secure user authentication function that:
1. Accepts email and password
2. Validates input format
3. Checks password against hash
4. Returns JWT token on success
5. Handles errors appropriately

With Temperature 0.7 (default):

Attempt 1:

async function authenticateUser(email: string, password: string) {
  // Validate email format
  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {
    return { success: false, error: "Invalid email" };
  }

  // Check password
  const user = await getUserByEmail(email);
  const valid = await bcrypt.compare(password, user.passwordHash);

  if (valid) {
    return { success: true, token: generateJWT(user) };
  }

  return { success: false, error: "Invalid credentials" };
}

Attempt 2 (same prompt):

async function authenticateUser(email: string, password: string) {
  try {
    const user = await findUser(email);

    if (!user) {
      throw new Error("User not found");
    }

    const passwordMatch = await verifyPassword(password, user.hash);

    if (!passwordMatch) {
      throw new Error("Invalid password");
    }

    const token = createToken({ userId: user.id });
    return { success: true, token };
  } catch (e) {
    return { success: false, error: e.message };
  }
}

Notice the differences:

• Different function names (getUserByEmail vs findUser)
• Different error handling (early return vs try-catch)
• Different token generation calls
• Different variable names

Both work. But which is “correct” for your codebase? Which matches your existing patterns?

With Temperature 0.3:

Every attempt:

async function authenticateUser(email: string, password: string) {
  // Validate email format
  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {
    return { success: false, error: "Invalid email format" };
  }

  // Fetch user from database
  const user = await getUserByEmail(email);
  if (!user) {
    return { success: false, error: "User not found" };
  }

  // Verify password
  const isValid = await bcrypt.compare(password, user.passwordHash);
  if (!isValid) {
    return { success: false, error: "Invalid password" };
  }

  // Generate JWT token
  const token = generateJWT({ userId: user.id, email: user.email });
  return { success: true, token };
}

Same structure. Same naming. Same approach. Every time.

This is reproducible engineering.

How to Actually Use This

1. Set Temperature in Your Prompts

Most tools let you adjust temperature. Don’t leave it at default.

Claude (via API):

{
  "model": "claude-3-5-sonnet",
  "temperature": 0.3,
  "messages": [...]
}

ChatGPT (via API):

{
  "model": "gpt-4",
  "temperature": 0.3,
  "messages": [...]
}

Cursor (.cursorrules):

For code generation tasks, use temperature 0.3 or lower.
For documentation, use temperature 0.5.
For creative tasks, use temperature 0.8.

2. Include Temperature in Your System Prompts

Bad:

You are a code generator. Write clean, production-ready code.

Better:

You are a code generator specialized in production systems.
Use temperature ≤ 0.3 for deterministic output.
Write clean, consistent, production-ready code.

3. Match Temperature to Task Type

Create a decision matrix for your team:

4. Combine with Other Parameters

Temperature isn’t the only control. Use Top-P too.

Top-P (nucleus sampling):

• Controls the diversity of token selection
• Lower = more focused
• Higher = more diverse

For code generation:

Temperature: 0.3
Top-P: 0.5

For creative writing:

Temperature: 0.8
Top-P: 0.9

The SPARC Standard

In my SPARC prompt library, every agent has explicit temperature requirements:

From the ‘code’ agent prompt:

[STYLE & CONSTRAINTS]
Use low creativity decoding parameters
(Temperature ≤ 0.3, Top-P ≤ 0.5) to ensure
logical consistency and accurate syntax.

From the ‘ui-ux-interpreter’ agent:

[STYLE & CONSTRAINTS]
Use moderate creativity settings
(Temperature 0.7-0.9) for design exploration
while maintaining structural consistency.

From the ‘version-manager’ agent:

[STYLE & CONSTRAINTS]
Use minimum creativity settings
(Temperature ≤ 0.1, Top-P ≤ 0.3) to ensure
perfect accuracy in version calculations.

This isn’t optional. It’s mandatory in the prompt specification.

What You’ll Notice

Once you start controlling temperature deliberately:

1. Debugging becomes easier

• Same input → same output
• You can reproduce issues
• You know what to expect

2. Code reviews are faster

• AI uses consistent patterns
• Less “why did it do it this way?” questions
• Easier to spot actual issues

3. Documentation stays accurate

• Technical details are consistent
• API examples are reliable
• No random variations

4. Teams can collaborate better

• Everyone gets similar results
• Shared patterns emerge
• Less confusion about AI behavior

The Limitations

Temperature isn’t magic. It doesn’t fix:

Bad prompts:

• Low temperature + vague instructions = consistently bad output

Missing context:

• Low temperature can’t invent missing information

Complex reasoning:

• Some tasks need multiple attempts regardless

Model capabilities:

• Temperature can’t make a model smarter

But it dramatically improves consistency for well-defined tasks.

The Bottom Line

Most developers never adjust temperature. They accept random variation as “how AI works.”

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Temperature is the single most important parameter for production AI work. Get it wrong and you get:

• Inconsistent implementations
• Unreliable debugging
• Random regressions
• Wasted time

Get it right and you get:

• Predictable behavior
• Reproducible output
• Consistent patterns
• Reliable systems

In SPARC, I didn’t just write prompts. I wrote deterministic specifications for AI behavior. Temperature control is how you go from “AI-assisted coding” to “AI-orchestrated development.”

Start here:

1. Check your current temperature setting (probably 0.7)
2. Set it to 0.3 for code generation
3. Run the same prompt 3 times
4. Notice the consistency

Then build from there.

Next time: How reasoning transparency (forcing <THINKING> tags) catches hallucinations before they become bugs.

Want the SPARC prompt library with temperature specifications for all 12 agents? It’s open source: [github.com/finneh4249/sparc-prompts]

Contact: mail@finneh.xyz
GitHub: github.com/finneh4249
Portfolio: finneh.xyz