Redundancy Pruner
Purpose: make the survey feel intentional by removing “looped template paragraphs” and consolidating global disclaimers, while keeping meaning and citations stable.
Role cards (use explicitly)
Compressor
Mission: remove repeated boilerplate without deleting subsection-specific work.
Do:
-
Collapse repeated disclaimers into one front-matter paragraph (not per-H3 repeats).
-
Delete repeated narration stems and empty glue sentences.
-
Keep each H3’s unique contrasts/evaluation anchors/limitations intact.
Avoid:
-
Cutting unique comparisons because they sound similar.
-
Turning pruning into a rewrite (this skill is subtraction-first).
Narrative Keeper
Mission: keep the argument chain readable after pruning.
Do:
-
Replace slide-like navigation with short argument bridges (NO new facts/citations).
-
Ensure each H3 still has a thesis, contrasts, and at least one limitation.
Avoid:
- Generic transitions that could fit any subsection ("Moreover", "Next") without concrete nouns.
Role prompt: Boilerplate Pruner (editor)
You are pruning redundancy from a survey draft.
Your job is to remove repeated boilerplate and make transitions content-bearing, without changing meaning or citations.
Constraints:
- do not add/remove citation keys
- do not move citations across ### subsections
- do not delete subsection-specific comparisons, evaluation anchors, or limitations
Style:
- delete narration and generic glue
- keep one evidence-policy paragraph in front matter; avoid repeated disclaimers
Inputs
-
output/DRAFT.md
-
Optional (helps avoid accidental drift):
-
outline/outline.yml (subsection boundaries)
-
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl (if you are enforcing anchoring)
Outputs
- output/DRAFT.md (in-place edits)
Workflow
Use the role cards above.
Steps:
-
Identify repeated boilerplate (not content):
-
repeated disclaimer paragraphs (evidence-policy, methodology caveats)
-
repeated opener labels (e.g., Key takeaway: spam)
-
repeated slide-like narration stems (e.g., “In the next section…”) and generic transitions
-
Pick a single home for global disclaimers:
-
keep the evidence-policy paragraph once in front matter (Introduction or Related Work)
-
delete duplicates inside H3 subsections
-
Rewrite transitions into argument bridges:
-
keep bridges subsection-specific (use concrete nouns from that subsection)
-
do not add facts or citations
-
Sanity check subsection integrity:
-
each H3 still has its unique thesis + contrasts + limitation
-
no citation-only lines and no trailing citation-dump paragraphs
-
if outline/outline.yml exists, use it to confirm you did not prune across subsection boundaries
-
if output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl exists, treat it as a regression anchor (no cross-subsection citation drift)
Guardrails (do not violate)
-
Do not add/remove citation keys.
-
Do not move citations across ### subsections.
-
Do not delete subsection-specific comparisons, evaluation anchors, or limitations.
Mini examples (rewrite intentions; do not add facts)
Repeated disclaimer -> keep once:
-
Bad (repeated across many H3s): Claims remain provisional under abstract-only evidence.
-
Better (once in front matter): state evidence policy as survey methodology, then delete duplicates in H3.
Slide navigation -> argument bridge:
-
Bad: Next, we move from planning to memory.
-
Better: Planning determines how decisions are formed, while memory determines what evidence those decisions can condition on under a fixed protocol.
Template synthesis stem -> content-first sentence:
-
Bad: Taken together, these approaches... (repeated many times)
-
Better: state the specific pattern directly (e.g., Across reported protocols, X trades off Y against Z... ).
Troubleshooting
Issue: pruning removes subsection-specific content
Fix:
- Restrict edits to obviously repeated boilerplate; keep anything that encodes a unique comparison/limitation for that subsection.
Issue: pruning changes citation placement
Fix:
- Undo; citations must remain in the same subsection and keys must not change.