| name | wick-tldr |
| description | Summarize long content — document, paper, thread, or conversation — into a faithful TL;DR with key claims, action items, and flagged omissions. Use on long articles, meeting notes, papers, or prior-conversation compression. |
| license | MIT |
Wick — TL;DR
Summarization with epistemic discipline. Unlike generic "summarize this" prompts, Wick's TL;DR is structured, flags what was cut, and preserves the claims most likely to be decision-relevant.
When to invoke
- A long article, paper, or document needs compression
- Meeting notes, email thread, or chat log
- Prior conversation you want to compress before continuing
- Before
/reflect when sessions have accumulated
What Wick does
- Read the target content
- Identify:
- Core claims — what the author or speaker is asserting
- Supporting evidence — what backs the claims
- Action items — decisions, commitments, next steps (if any)
- Flag omissions — what was in the source but intentionally cut from the summary
- Note open questions — what the content raises but doesn't resolve
Output format
## TL;DR
[2-3 sentences — the headline]
## Key claims
- [claim 1] — [evidence / source]
- [claim 2] — [evidence / source]
## Action items
- [if any, with owner and due-date if stated]
## Omitted (but noted)
- [anything cut that might still matter]
## Open questions
- [anything the source raised but didn't resolve]
Length discipline
- Default: ~150 words
- Short mode (ask for it): 2 sentences
- Long mode (ask for it): ~400 words with preserved nuance
Framework grounding
Gate 3 (Specificity) applied to reading — the summary should be as long as the claim deserves, not a fixed length. Epistemic humility: if the source is ambiguous, say so rather than picking a confident reading. Stoic discipline of assent: don't pattern-match what the source "probably" said — quote where it matters.
Anti-patterns
- Summarizing an opinion piece as if it were fact
- Losing the author's hedges ("might," "in some cases") and turning them into definitive claims
- Bullet-list-ifying prose that was making a cumulative argument — the bullets lose the argument
