Condense Article
Reduce an overly long article's word count while preserving its essential arguments, unique insights, and distinctive voice.
When to Use
- •When
/condense [filepath]is invoked - •When executing a
condensetask from todo - •When an article exceeds critical length threshold
- •When deep-review encounters an article over hard threshold
Principles
What to Cut
- •
Redundancy - Content that says the same thing twice
- •Repeated explanations in different sections
- •Multiple examples making the same point (keep the best one)
- •Introductory sentences that restate what follows
- •
Background LLMs already know - Standard definitions and history
- •Basic philosophical terms (consciousness, qualia, etc.) - link instead
- •Historical overviews covered in other articles
- •Common objections that have their own pages
- •
Tangential sections - Content that could be its own article
- •Extended digressions from the main argument
- •Deep dives into related topics
- •Detailed examples that overshadow the point
- •
Excessive hedging - Overqualified language
- •"It might perhaps be argued that one could say..."
- •Multiple caveats for the same point
- •Defensive qualifications that weaken rather than clarify
- •
Over-attribution - Too many citations for obvious claims
- •Multiple citations for uncontroversial facts
- •Block quotes that could be paraphrased
- •Extended literature reviews
What to Preserve
- •Opening summary - Front-loaded key claims for LLM truncation resilience
- •Unique arguments - The Map's distinctive contributions
- •Relation to Site Perspective - Tenet connections (never remove this section)
- •Author voice - Distinctive phrasings that work
- •Critical cross-links - Connections to other Map content
- •Further Reading and References - Keep but can trim
What to Extract (Not Delete)
Some content is valuable but doesn't belong in this article:
- •Create linked articles for detailed subtopics
- •Move extended examples to separate pages
- •Defer background to existing concept pages
- •Replace removed content with: "For details, see [[linked-article]]"
Instructions
1. Analyze Current State
First, measure the article and understand the problem:
uv run python -c "
from pathlib import Path
from tools.curate.length import analyze_length
a = analyze_length(Path('[filepath]'))
print(f'Current: {a.word_count} words')
print(f'Target: {a.soft_threshold} words')
print(f'Excess: {a.excess_words} words ({a.excess_percent:.0f}% of target)')
print(f'Status: {a.status}')
print(f'Section: {a.section}')
"
Thresholds by section:
| Section | Target | Hard | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|
| concepts/ | 2500 | 3500 | 5000 |
| topics/ | 3000 | 4000 | 6000 |
| apex/ | 4000 | 5000 | 6500 |
| voids/ | 2000 | 3000 | 4000 |
Calculate reduction needed:
- •Target: Middle of acceptable range (e.g., 2000 for concepts, 2500 for topics)
- •Minimum: Reduce to at least soft threshold
- •Ideal: Reduce to target while preserving quality
2. Structural Review
Read the full article and identify:
- •Essential sections - Core argument, must keep
- •Optional sections - Supporting but not critical
- •Redundant passages - Repeat earlier points
- •Background to cut - Could be assumed or linked
- •Tangents to extract - Could be separate articles
3. Plan Cuts (Show Work)
Before editing, document planned changes in a table:
| Section | Words | Action | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening | 350 | Keep | Front-loaded summary |
| Background on X | 800 | Cut 60% | Standard material, link to [[x]] |
| Main Argument | 1200 | Keep | Core contribution |
| Historical Survey | 600 | Extract | Create separate article |
| Example 1 | 300 | Keep | Best illustration |
| Example 2 | 250 | Cut | Redundant with Example 1 |
| Example 3 | 200 | Cut | Redundant |
| Objections | 500 | Trim 30% | Some repetition |
| Relation to Site | 400 | Keep | Required section |
Expected result: Current 4500 → Target 2800 (reduction of 1700 words)
4. Apply Condensation
Edit the article following the plan:
Cutting techniques:
- •Replace paragraphs with single sentences + links
- •Combine related sections under one heading
- •Remove redundant examples (keep the best one)
- •Tighten prose:
- •"It is the case that X" → "X"
- •"In order to" → "To"
- •"Due to the fact that" → "Because"
- •"One might observe that" → (delete)
- •"It should be noted that" → (delete)
Extraction technique (when content should exist elsewhere):
- •If creating new article: write it first with proper frontmatter
- •If deferring to existing article: verify the link resolves
- •Replace removed content with: "See [[linked-article]] for details on X."
Combining technique:
- •Merge sections with overlapping themes
- •Use the strongest version of repeated arguments
- •Create clear transitions between merged content
5. Verify Quality
After condensation, check:
- •Flow - Does the article still read smoothly?
- •Opening summary - Does it still make sense standalone?
- •Core argument - Is the main point preserved?
- •Tenet connection - Is "Relation to Site Perspective" intact?
- •Cross-links - Do all internal links still work?
- •Voice - Does it still sound like the original author?
6. Update Frontmatter
ai_modified: [current ISO timestamp] # If significant changes to human content: ai_contribution: [increase appropriately]
7. Log to Changelog
Append to obsidian/workflow/changelog.md:
### HH:MM - condense - **Status**: Success - **File**: [filepath] - **Before**: [word count] - **After**: [word count] - **Reduction**: [percentage]% - **Technique**: [summary: cut redundancy, extracted [topic] to new article, etc.]
8. Commit
refine(content): condense [filename] from N to M words - [Key cut 1] - [Key cut 2] Preserved core arguments and tenet alignment.
What NOT to Do
- •NEVER truncate arbitrarily (cutting from end without review)
- •NEVER remove the opening summary - It's critical for LLM access
- •NEVER remove "Relation to Site Perspective" - Required section
- •NEVER sacrifice unique arguments for length - Preserve the Map's voice
- •NEVER cut all examples - Keep at least one good illustration
- •NEVER create orphan content - If extracting, ensure new article is linked
- •NEVER ignore author voice - Preserve distinctive phrasings
When to Leave an Article Long
Some articles genuinely need their length. Document and leave if:
- •Topic complexity - The subject truly requires extended treatment
- •Tenet support - The article is central to defending core tenets
- •Unique coverage - No other resource covers this material
- •High quality - Every section adds distinct value
If leaving long, add a note to the changelog:
- **Status**: Reviewed, no condensation applied - **Reason**: [explanation]
Important
- •This skill MODIFIES content
- •Always preserve the article's core value proposition
- •Target the middle of the acceptable range, not the minimum
- •Quality > brevity - don't sacrifice clarity for word count
- •Document all significant cuts in the changelog
- •If unsure whether to cut something, keep it