---
name: redundancy-pruner
description: |
  Remove repeated boilerplate across sections (methodology disclaimers, generic transitions, repeated summaries) while preserving citations and meaning.
  **Trigger**: redundancy, repetition, boilerplate removal, 去重复, 去套话, 合并重复段落.
  **Use when**: the draft feels rigid because the same paragraph shape and disclaimer repeats across many subsections.
  **Skip if**: you are still drafting major missing sections (finish drafting first).
  **Network**: none.
  **Guardrail**: do not add/remove citation keys; do not move citations across subsections; do not delete subsection-specific content.
---

# Redundancy Pruner

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

## Role cards (use explicitly)

### 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).

### Narrative Keeper

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.

## Role prompt: Boilerplate Pruner (editor)

```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
```

## Inputs

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

## Outputs

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

## Workflow

Use the role cards above.

Steps:

1) 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

2) 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

3) Rewrite transitions into argument bridges:
- keep bridges subsection-specific (use concrete nouns from that subsection)
- do not add facts or citations

4) 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)

## Guardrails (do not violate)

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


## Mini examples (rewrite intentions; do not add facts)

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...`).

## Troubleshooting

### Issue: pruning removes subsection-specific content

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

### Issue: pruning changes citation placement

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