Open AI response issue

by

Summary

We observed a recurring issue when using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate conversion of HTML designs into WordPress themes or Gutenberg plugins. The core problem is output inconsistency and context loss. The model frequently mixes layout logic (e.g., raw HTML vs. Gutenberg block markup), generates structurally invalid PHP files, and fails to maintain a cohesive design system for large files. This results in a workflow where engineers must manually correct fragmented code rather than generating usable assets, significantly degrading development velocity.

Root Cause

The root cause is twofold: the probabilistic nature of LLM generation regarding strict syntax schemas, and the token window limitations inherent to the model.

  • Schema Drifting: The model does not enforce a rigid schema (like a compiler) across a multi-turn conversation. It treats the request to “convert HTML to WordPress” as a generation task, not a translation task. This leads to:
    • Mixing div-based layouts with Gutenberg <!-- wp:paragraph --> comments.
    • Omitting required WordPress headers in style.css or functions.php.
    • Inconsistent class naming conventions (e.g., switching from BEM to utility classes mid-response).
  • Context Saturation: For “large designs,” the input tokens (the HTML source) likely exceed the effective context window where the model can retain the entire DOM tree. As the generation progresses, the model “forgets” the parent-child relationships of elements, leading to:
    • Orphaned CSS rules (styles defined for elements that are removed or renamed).
    • Duplicate ID attributes.
    • Missing closing PHP tags.

Why This Happens in Real Systems

In production environments, this behavior stems from a fundamental mismatch between LLM capabilities and deterministic engineering requirements.

  • Non-Deterministic Compilation: Traditional code generation relies on deterministic parsers. LLMs rely on pattern matching. If the pattern is ambiguous (e.g., “make this responsive”), the model often hallucinates or defaults to generic patterns that don’t fit the specific HTML structure provided.
  • Token Amnesia: When converting a 500-line HTML file, the model may process the top 100 lines accurately. By the time it reaches line 400, the probability of it recalling specific variable names or CSS classes defined in line 50 approaches zero unless explicitly reinforced in the prompt.
  • Ambiguous Instruction Interpretation: “Convert to WordPress” is a vague prompt. The model might interpret this as “Generate a basic theme structure” or “Rewrite this HTML as a PHP file” or “Create a Gutenberg block plugin.” Without strict constraints, it vacillates between these interpretations.

Real-World Impact

  • Increased Development Time: Engineers spend more time debugging the AI’s output than writing code manually.
  • Technical Debt: Copied inconsistent patterns (e.g., hardcoded styles in <head> instead of style.css) create maintenance nightmares.
  • Invalid Artifacts: The model often produces code that looks correct syntactically but fails WordPress standards (e.g., missing escaping functions like esc_html()), creating security vulnerabilities.
  • Cognitive Load: Developers must constantly context-switch to verify if the AI generated a valid Gutenberg block or just a static HTML snippet.

Example or Code

Since the issue involves LLM hallucinations rather than a specific bug in a codebase, no specific executable code is required to demonstrate the fix. The “code” is the generation itself. However, the pattern of failure is evident in the output structure.

How Senior Engineers Fix It

Senior engineers address this by moving from “prompting” to “architecting a deterministic workflow.”

  • Decomposition: Instead of asking for the full conversion at once, break the HTML into atomic components (Header, Hero, Card). Process these individually to stay within the context window.
  • Strict Few-Shot Prompting: Provide the LLM with a “golden example” of exactly how a specific HTML snippet should look as a Gutenberg block.
    • Example Prompt: “Convert this specific div structure to the following PHP block render pattern. Do not deviate.”
  • Post-Processing Pipelines: Never trust raw LLM output. Run the generated code through a linter (e.g., PHP_CodeSniffer) or a validation script that checks for missing closing tags or invalid WordPress function names.
  • Structured Output Formats: Force the model to output JSON structures representing the code, which can then be parsed and written to files by a deterministic script, rather than asking it to write raw text files directly.

Why Juniors Miss It

Junior engineers often struggle to identify the root cause because the AI output looks correct at a glance.

  • Trust in “Polished” Text: LLMs output code with confidence. Juniors often assume if the syntax highlights correctly, the logic is correct. They miss the subtle architectural errors (like wrong action hooks in WordPress).
  • Lack of Context on Context Windows: Juniors often try to paste the entire project into a single chat window, not realizing the model has effectively “forgotten” the beginning of the file by the end of the conversation.
  • Prompting Vagueness: They ask broad questions (“Fix this theme”) rather than specific technical directives (“Rewrite the functions.php enqueuing logic to handle the specific CSS dependencies in the provided code block”).