mcpField
C
compression-and-iteration

compression-and-iteration

github.com/arthurzakirovMarketing & growth0164 installsUpdated 4w ago
Repository

About compression-and-iteration

A writing skill for shortening copy that exceeds a character limit or feels dense. It offers a prioritization and iteration method for preserving evidence, mechanism, and reader benefit while cutting text.

Key features

  1. 01Count text and assess required cuts
  2. 02Preserve the copy's central argument
  3. 03Prioritize low-signal material for removal
  4. 04Revise without losing factual nuance

Use cases

  1. 01Shorten a LinkedIn profile to fit a limit
  2. 02Condense a resume bullet or social post
  3. 03Trim image-prompt text while retaining constraints

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/arthurzakirov/proofstack --skill compression-and-iteration

After installing, type/compression-and-iterationin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Compression & Iteration Skill

Use this when

Use this skill when copy is over a character limit or feels too dense.

Common limits:

  • LinkedIn headline
  • LinkedIn About section
  • LinkedIn Experience description
  • GitHub bio
  • resume one-page constraints
  • social posts
  • image prompt text limits

Core principle

Compression should not remove the reason to read.

Protect these elements:

  1. hook
  2. proof
  3. unusual contrast
  4. mechanism
  5. reader benefit
  6. CTA

Cut everything else first.

Step 1 — Count and classify

Identify:

  • current character count
  • target character count
  • required reduction
  • highest-signal sentences
  • low-signal/redundant sections

Step 2 — Protect the spine

For a bio/profile, protect:

proof → unusual starting point → curiosity question → mechanism → reader benefit → CTA

For resume bullets, protect:

metric → outcome → mechanism → scope

For visual prompts, protect:

layout → emotional contrast → mechanism → aspect ratio → text constraints

Step 3 — Cut in the right order

Cut in this order:

  1. filler phrases
  2. repeated words
  3. unnecessary adjectives
  4. long setup explanations
  5. redundant examples
  6. overly detailed starting-point descriptions
  7. secondary tools in long tech-stack lists
  8. less measurable claims
  9. optional CTA modifiers

Do not cut first:

  • numbers
  • timeframes
  • before/after metrics
  • strong mechanism phrases
  • reader-benefit line
  • proof of adoption

Common compression replacements

"in order to" → "to"
"the reason why" → "why"
"was able to" → "could" or direct verb
"helped to secure" → "helped secure"
"a very high amount of" → "high"
"the people closest to the work" → "operators/users"
"with the goal of" → "to"
"made it possible for" → "enabled"
"used operational data to see the bigger picture" → "used operational data"

Compressing the starting-point gap

Bad:

Before this role, most of my coding experience came from many different internships where I mainly wrote Jupyter notebooks and scripts, and I had little experience with Java, AWS, Databricks, Spark, CI/CD, production testing, and large legacy services.

Better:

Before this, my coding was mostly ML notebooks and scripts. I had to ramp up on production engineering, cloud, CI/CD, testing, and legacy services almost from scratch.

Compressing mechanisms

Verbose:

I use active listening, operational data, and direct manual exposure to uncover the real bottleneck, risk, deadline, or hidden constraint.

Shorter:

Use active listening, data, and hands-on exposure to uncover the real bottleneck, risk, or constraint.

Compression output format

Return:

## Current estimate
- Characters: [count]
- Limit: [limit]
- Need to cut: [number]

## Revised version
[text]

## What I cut
- [cut]
- [cut]

## What I protected
- [protected]
- [protected]

Iteration rules

When revising based on feedback:

  • Preserve the user's underlying conceptual correction, not just the surface wording.
  • If the user rejects a phrase, infer the principle behind the rejection.
  • Do not reintroduce previously rejected claims.
  • Distinguish between factual correction and style preference.
  • Keep a compact list of protected phrases.

Quality bar

A compressed version is successful if:

  • it fits the limit
  • the hook still works
  • proof remains specific
  • the mechanism remains distinct
  • the reader benefit remains clear
  • no factual nuance was reversed

Comments

Markdown supported