/compression

name: compression
description: Cuts a draft to a target word count without losing substance. Two modes behind one skill. target-count hits a specific number (200 for a cold email, 500 for an op-ed, 6 for a product summary). redundancy catches the specific failure where a phrase says what the verb or context already implied — "going forward" after a future-tense verb, "as I mentioned earlier," "reduce so they are smaller." Implements Kramon's "rewrite this in less than 100 words" exercise, the six-word summary drill, and the in-class redundancy exercise. Use when the user says "shorten this," "cut this," "tighten," "make it concise," "too many words," "going forward," "say it twice," "redundant." Pass --mode target-count|redundancy|both (default both) and --target-words N for target-count.

Compression

Source: `points/core-rules.md` rule 5 (be shorter), `points/banned-jargon.md` (wordy phrases), `points/frameworks.md` (six-word summary), and the Kramon in-class redundancy exercise.

> *"Be shorter. Always. Cut without losing substance."* — Kramon

What this skill does

Two modes behind one skill. They cut different things:

| Mode | Cuts | Use when | |---|---|---| | **target-count** | throat-clearing, hedges, weak sentences, anything between the draft and the word target | User has a length to hit (200 for cold email, 500 for op-ed, 6 for product summary) | | **redundancy** | phrases where one half is implied by the other (`going forward`, `as I mentioned`, `reduce so they are smaller`, `free gift`, `definitely commit`) | Draft is wordy in a way that's hard to point at — long without obvious filler |

Default `--mode both` runs redundancy first (it's surgical, every cut is defensible), then target-count (which may need to cut substantive material). The order matters: redundancy cuts free words first, so target-count doesn't have to.

How to invoke

/compression "draft text"
/compression --mode target-count --target-words 200 "draft text"
/compression --mode redundancy "draft text"
/compression --mode both --target-words 500 "draft text"

Without `--mode`, default to `both`. `--target-words` is required for `target-count` mode and optional for `both` (if omitted in `both`, run redundancy only).

---

Mode 1 — target-count

Most drafts can lose 30% with no loss of meaning. Many can lose 50%. Forced compression is what reveals which sentences were actually carrying weight.

Three drill levels

**Level 1 — Cut 30% (standard pass)**

Tactics:

• Remove every -ly adverb that isn't doing real work
• Replace wordy phrases (see [banned-jargon.md](../../points/banned-jargon.md))
• Combine sentences that share a subject
• Cut hedges: *"I think,"* *"perhaps,"* *"it might be the case that"*
• Cut throat-clearing: *"In this piece I'll argue that…"* — just argue it
• Replace passive with active

**Level 2 — Hit a target word count**

User gives a number (200 for cold email, 500 for op-ed, 100 for memo). Iterate:

1. Cut to 1.5× the target — easy passes only 2. Cut to 1.2× the target — harder; remove subordinate clauses 3. Cut to 1.0× the target — surgical; every word earns its place 4. Cut to 0.9× the target — leave room for one final addition

**Level 3 — Six-word summary**

The ultimate compression. One thing, six words, tells a story.

Run the user through: 1. What's the single most important thing about this? 2. Who is the protagonist? 3. What changed? 4. Draft. Score. Iterate.

Examples that work:

• *"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."* (Hemingway)
• *"Edited Pulitzer winners. Now teaching business leaders."* (Kramon)
• *"Immigrant's kid, chip on her shoulder."* (student)
• *"Soldier first, engineer always, educator next."* (student)

The rule: six words that tell a **story** — not six unrelated descriptors.

What not to cut

Compression is not amputation. **Keep:**

• Specific sensory details (a date, a place, a sound, an image) — these make writing memorable
• "Like you" lines and personal hooks
• The one moment of warmth or humor
• Names and numbers

**Cut first:**

• Throat-clearing
• Hedges
• Adverbs
• Synonyms used for variety ("she said… she explained… she argued…")
• Unnecessary qualifiers
• Background the reader can infer

The two-pass method

1. **First pass** — read aloud. Cross out any sentence you stumble over. Stumbles are usually sentences not earning their place. 2. **Second pass** — read again. For each surviving sentence, ask: *what changes if I delete this?* If nothing, delete.

---

Mode 2 — redundancy

A specific failure: a phrase that *feels* like it adds information when in fact it adds nothing. The verb or the surrounding context already implies it. Cut.

Pattern 1 — Verb-implied direction

*"Going forward"* and *"moving forward"* after a future-tense verb.

| Redundant | Fixed | |---|---| | We promise better security going forward. | We promise better security. | | Moving forward, we'll offer encryption. | We'll offer encryption. | | In the future, all our hires will be technical. | All our hires will be technical. | | From this point onward, we'll improve. | We'll improve. |

The future tense already does the work. Add a tag only if you're contrasting with the past (*"unlike last quarter, we'll publish monthly going forward"* — fine).

Pattern 2 — Self-referential meta-commentary

The reader is reading it; they know.

| Redundant | Fixed | |---|---| | I am currently writing this email to you. | (cut entirely) | | As I said earlier, X. | X. | | As I mentioned in my last email, X. | X. | | The purpose of this memo is to argue that X. | X. (just argue it) | | What I will demonstrate in this section is X. | X. (then demonstrate it) |

Pattern 3 — Verb-implied result

The verb names the action; the result is implied.

| Redundant | Fixed | |---|---| | Reduce the size of teams so they are smaller. | Reduce the team. | | Increase headcount so we have more people. | Increase headcount. | | Lower the price so it costs less. | Lowe