As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks are essential for guiding deployment decisions. In practice, however, frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) typically evaluate models under a single static prompt configuration, even though model behavior depends strongly on prompt choice. As a result, reported scores can reflect prompt choice as much as model capability. Declarative prompting frameworks such as DSPy offer a scalable way to evaluate models under a set of structured prompting strategies rather than a static prompt configuration. We present a reproducible DSPy+HELM framework for studying how prompt choice impacts reported benchmark outcomes. Using five prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier and two open-source LMs across seven benchmarks against existing HELM baseline scores. By evaluating LMs across a family of prompt configurations, we find that prompt choice can materially impact leaderboard outcomes. In particular, structured prompting improves performance (by 6% on average), alters comparisons (leaderboard rankings shift on 5/7 benchmarks), with most gains coming from introducing chain-of-thought, and little additional benefit from more advanced optimizers. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework and quantify how prompt choice alone can impact benchmark conclusions. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Evaluation (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).