Claude Prompt

Tighten-my-prose editing prompt

A prompt that cuts hedging and filler while preserving the author's voice.

Ada · 58 points · 2.1k 488

#writing

## The prompt You are a ruthless line editor. Your job is to cut every word that does not earn its place, while preserving the author's voice, argument, and facts. **Cut:** - Hedges: *I think, sort of, just, really, very, quite, arguably, somewhat* - Throat-clearing: *It is worth noting that…, In this section we will…, As you may know…* - Filler transitions: *Moreover, Furthermore, That being said, In conclusion* - Redundant pairs: *each and every, first and foremost, plan ahead* - Nominalizations: *make a decision* → *decide*, *provide an explanation* → *explain*, *is indicative of* → *indicates* - Empty intensifiers and adverbs that restate the verb: *completely eliminate*, *carefully consider* **Preserve, without exception:** - The author's vocabulary and register. Casual prose stays casual; formal stays formal. Do not "professionalize" anything. - Technical terms, proper nouns, code identifiers, numbers, units, and quotations — verbatim. - Every claim the author made. Cutting words is the job; cutting *ideas* is not. - Deliberate repetition used for rhythm or emphasis. If a sentence repeats a word three times on purpose, leave it. - Hedges that carry real epistemic weight. *"We think this caused the outage"* may be an honest statement of uncertainty, not a filler *I think*. If cutting the hedge would make the sentence a stronger claim than the author can support, keep it. **Also:** - Break run-on sentences where one idea per sentence improves clarity — but do not chop varied prose into a monotone of short declaratives. - Prefer active voice unless the passive is doing real work (the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately de-emphasized). **Process:** 1. Return the tightened version first — clean, no commentary, formatting intact. 2. Then, under a `--- Changes ---` line, list the 3–5 most significant cuts and why each was dead weight. 3. Then, under `--- Left alone ---`, name anything you deliberately did not cut and why. If a passage is already tight, **leave it alone and say so**, rather than churning it to demonstrate effort. Returning the input unchanged is a valid, correct answer. Report the word count before and after. ```text Text to edit: {paste your draft here} ``` ## Why each rule is there - **"Preserve the author's voice"** is the load-bearing line. Without it you get prose that is 30% shorter and no longer sounds like anyone. That's not editing, it's laundering. - **"Leave it alone and say so"** counteracts the strong bias toward acting. Without it, an already-clean paragraph comes back rearranged. - **The `Left alone` section** is what stops over-cutting: forcing an explicit defense of the hedges it kept makes the model reason about which hedges are load-bearing rather than pattern-matching a banned-word list. - **Word counts** give you a number to sanity-check. A 45% cut on technical prose usually means ideas went missing. ## How to use it well Run it on **one section at a time**, not a whole document. Editing quality falls off with length, and you want to actually read the diff — which nobody does for 3,000 words. Then read the output against the original *for meaning*, not for style. The failure you are looking for is a claim that got quietly softened or dropped, and it is easy to miss because the result reads well. ## Test cases to keep next to it 1. **A flabby paragraph** — the normal case. 2. **An already-tight paragraph** — does it correctly do nothing? 3. **A paragraph with deliberate repetition** — does it preserve the rhythm? 4. **A paragraph where a hedge is honest** — does it keep *"we believe"* when the author genuinely can't assert more? 5. **A code-heavy paragraph** — are identifiers and numbers untouched? Re-run all five whenever you change the prompt or the model. ## Variations - **Halve it:** add *"target a 50% cut; if that costs an idea, stop at the largest cut that costs none and report where you stopped."* - **Explain-only mode:** *"Do not edit. Mark every phrase you would cut, with the reason."* Better for learning than for shipping — you'll internalize the patterns and stop needing the prompt. - **House style:** append your own banned list. Most teams have five words they keep having to remove; that list belongs here permanently.

The prompt

You are a ruthless line editor. Your job is to cut every word that does not earn its place, while preserving the author's voice, argument, and facts.

Cut:

Hedges: I think, sort of, just, really, very, quite, arguably, somewhat
Throat-clearing: It is worth noting that…, In this section we will…, As you may know…
Filler transitions: Moreover, Furthermore, That being said, In conclusion
Redundant pairs: each and every, first and foremost, plan ahead
Nominalizations: make a decision → decide, provide an explanation → explain, is indicative of → indicates
Empty intensifiers and adverbs that restate the verb: completely eliminate, carefully consider

Preserve, without exception:

The author's vocabulary and register. Casual prose stays casual; formal stays formal. Do not "professionalize" anything.
Technical terms, proper nouns, code identifiers, numbers, units, and quotations — verbatim.
Every claim the author made. Cutting words is the job; cutting ideas is not.
Deliberate repetition used for rhythm or emphasis. If a sentence repeats a word three times on purpose, leave it.
Hedges that carry real epistemic weight. "We think this caused the outage" may be an honest statement of uncertainty, not a filler I think. If cutting the hedge would make the sentence a stronger claim than the author can support, keep it.

Also:

Break run-on sentences where one idea per sentence improves clarity — but do not chop varied prose into a monotone of short declaratives.
Prefer active voice unless the passive is doing real work (the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately de-emphasized).

Process:

Return the tightened version first — clean, no commentary, formatting intact.
Then, under a --- Changes --- line, list the 3–5 most significant cuts and why each was dead weight.
Then, under --- Left alone ---, name anything you deliberately did not cut and why.

If a passage is already tight, leave it alone and say so, rather than churning it to demonstrate effort. Returning the input unchanged is a valid, correct answer.

Report the word count before and after.

Text to edit:
{paste your draft here}

Why each rule is there

"Preserve the author's voice" is the load-bearing line. Without it you get prose that is 30% shorter and no longer sounds like anyone. That's not editing, it's laundering.
"Leave it alone and say so" counteracts the strong bias toward acting. Without it, an already-clean paragraph comes back rearranged.
The Left alone section is what stops over-cutting: forcing an explicit defense of the hedges it kept makes the model reason about which hedges are load-bearing rather than pattern-matching a banned-word list.
Word counts give you a number to sanity-check. A 45% cut on technical prose usually means ideas went missing.

How to use it well

Run it on one section at a time, not a whole document. Editing quality falls off with length, and you want to actually read the diff — which nobody does for 3,000 words.

Then read the output against the original for meaning, not for style. The failure you are looking for is a claim that got quietly softened or dropped, and it is easy to miss because the result reads well.

Test cases to keep next to it

A flabby paragraph — the normal case.
An already-tight paragraph — does it correctly do nothing?
A paragraph with deliberate repetition — does it preserve the rhythm?
A paragraph where a hedge is honest — does it keep "we believe" when the author genuinely can't assert more?
A code-heavy paragraph — are identifiers and numbers untouched?

Re-run all five whenever you change the prompt or the model.

Variations

Halve it: add "target a 50% cut; if that costs an idea, stop at the largest cut that costs none and report where you stopped."
Explain-only mode: "Do not edit. Mark every phrase you would cut, with the reason." Better for learning than for shipping — you'll internalize the patterns and stop needing the prompt.
House style: append your own banned list. Most teams have five words they keep having to remove; that list belongs here permanently.