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

  condense

  task from todo
• When an article exceeds critical length threshold
• When deep-review encounters an article over hard threshold

Principles

What to Cut

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

1. Opening summary - Front-loaded key claims for LLM truncation resilience
2. Unique arguments - The Map's distinctive contributions
3. Relation to Site Perspective - Tenet connections (never remove this section)
4. Author voice - Distinctive phrasings that work
5. Critical cross-links - Connections to other Map content
6. 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:

1. Essential sections - Core argument, must keep
2. Optional sections - Supporting but not critical
3. Redundant passages - Repeat earlier points
4. Background to cut - Could be assumed or linked
5. 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):

1. If creating new article: write it first with proper frontmatter
2. If deferring to existing article: verify the link resolves
3. 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:

1. Flow - Does the article still read smoothly?
2. Opening summary - Does it still make sense standalone?
3. Core argument - Is the main point preserved?
4. Tenet connection - Is "Relation to Site Perspective" intact?
5. Cross-links - Do all internal links still work?
6. 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:

1. Topic complexity - The subject truly requires extended treatment
2. Tenet support - The article is central to defending core tenets
3. Unique coverage - No other resource covers this material
4. 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