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

1. Read the target content
2. Identify:

• Core claims — what the author or speaker is asserting
• Supporting evidence — what backs the claims
• Action items — decisions, commitments, next steps (if any)

1. Flag omissions — what was in the source but intentionally cut from the summary
2. 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