redundancy-pruner

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Redundancy Pruner

—

用途：通过移除“循环模板段落”并整合全局免责声明，让调研报告显得更具针对性，同时保持原意和引用内容的稳定性。

—

角色卡片（需明确使用）

—

压缩者

Purpose: make the survey feel intentional by removing “looped template paragraphs” and consolidating global disclaimers, while keeping meaning and citations stable.

任务：移除重复的套话内容，同时保留子章节专属内容。

执行要点：

将重复的免责声明合并为一个前置段落（避免在每个H3章节重复出现）。
删除重复的叙述开头和无意义的过渡语句。
保留每个H3章节独有的对比内容、评估依据和局限性描述。

避免事项：

因内容听起来相似就删除独有的对比内容。
将修剪操作变成重写（本技能以删减为核心）。

Role cards (use explicitly)

叙事维护者

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).

任务：在修剪后保持论证逻辑的可读性。

执行要点：

用简短的论证过渡替代幻灯片式的导航语句（不得添加新事实或引用）。
确保每个H3章节仍包含论点、对比内容和至少一项局限性描述。

避免事项：

使用适用于任何子章节的通用过渡语（如“此外”、“接下来”），需搭配具体名词。

Narrative Keeper

角色提示词：Boilerplate Pruner（编辑）

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.

text

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

Role prompt: Boilerplate Pruner (editor)

输入内容

text

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

```
output/DRAFT.md
```
可选辅助内容（帮助避免意外偏差）：
- ```
outline/outline.yml
```
  （子章节边界）
- ```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
  （若需严格遵循引用锚点）

Inputs

输出内容

```
output/DRAFT.md
```
Optional (helps avoid accidental drift):
- ```
outline/outline.yml
```
  (subsection boundaries)
- ```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
  (if you are enforcing anchoring)

```
output/DRAFT.md
```
（原地编辑）

Outputs

工作流程

```
output/DRAFT.md
```
(in-place edits)

使用上述角色卡片，执行以下步骤：

识别明显重复的套话内容（非核心内容）：

重复的免责声明段落（如证据政策、方法论说明）
重复的开头标识（例如：重复出现的
```
Key takeaway:
```
）
重复的幻灯片式叙述开头（例如：“在下一节中…”）和通用过渡语句

为全局免责声明选择唯一放置位置：

将证据政策段落仅保留一次在前置内容中（引言或相关工作章节）
删除H3子章节中的重复内容

将过渡语句重写为论证衔接句：

确保衔接句与子章节内容相关（使用该子章节的具体名词）
不得添加新事实或引用

检查子章节完整性：

每个H3章节仍包含独有的论点、对比内容和局限性描述
不存在仅含引用的行或末尾堆砌引用的段落
若
```
outline/outline.yml
```
存在，用它确认未跨子章节边界进行修剪
若
```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
存在，将其作为回归锚点（不得在子章节间移动引用）

Workflow

约束规则（不得违反）

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)

不得添加/删除引用标识。
不得在
```
###
```
子章节间移动引用。
不得删除子章节专属的对比内容、评估依据或局限性描述。

Guardrails (do not violate)

迷你示例（重写思路；不得添加新事实）

Do not add/remove citation keys.
Do not move citations across
```
###
```
subsections.
Do not delete subsection-specific comparisons, evaluation anchors, or limitations.

重复的免责声明 → 仅保留一次：

错误示例（在多个H3章节重复）：

Claims remain provisional under abstract-only evidence.

优化示例（仅在前置内容保留）：将证据政策作为调研方法论说明，然后删除H3章节中的重复内容。

幻灯片式导航 → 论证衔接句：

错误示例：
```
Next, we move from planning to memory.
```

优化示例：

Planning determines how decisions are formed, while memory determines what evidence those decisions can condition on under a fixed protocol.

模板式总结开头 → 内容导向语句：

错误示例：
```
Taken together, these approaches...
```
（多次重复）

优化示例：直接陈述具体模式（例如：

Across reported protocols, X trades off Y against Z...

）

Mini examples (rewrite intentions; do not add facts)

故障排除

—

问题：修剪操作移除了子章节专属内容

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...

解决方法：仅对明显重复的套话内容进行编辑；保留所有包含该子章节独有对比/局限性的内容。

Troubleshooting

问题：修剪操作改变了引用位置

Issue: pruning removes subsection-specific content

—

Fix:

Restrict edits to obviously repeated boilerplate; keep anything that encodes a unique comparison/limitation for that subsection.

解决方法：撤销操作；引用必须保留在原属子章节中，且引用标识不得更改。

Issue: pruning changes citation placement

—

Fix:

Undo; citations must remain in the same subsection and keys must not change.

—