tm
tm ("too much") fires right after a reply that was too long, too technical, or too question-heavy. Rewrite the last reply in synthesised terse style. Sticky — the terser style holds for every subsequent reply in the session, not just the rewrite.
Action
Rewrite the last reply you sent in synthesised style. No preamble. No "rewriting…" announcement. Post the new version cleanly.
Style of the rewrite
| Rule | Detail |
|---|---|
| Functional vocab only | No tech jargon. Product behaviour, business outcomes, user-visible effects. Bruno is a BA — engineering details are yours, not the conversation's |
| Incisive. Synthesised. | Lead with the answer or the decision driver. No prose flood. No multi-section dumps |
| Drop non-actionable detail | Findings, options weighed, audit chains, plan recaps — only what Bruno needs for the next decision |
| One question at a time | If the original asked multiple, pick the single most important. Save the rest for later turns |
| Hard line cap | Under 10 lines. 20 is the ceiling. If a topic genuinely needs more, ship the synthesis and let Bruno pull more out |
Persistence — sticky
Once this fires, the style holds for every subsequent reply in the session. Do not drift back to verbose, multi-section, multi-question replies after a few turns. If Bruno fires tm again, it means you drifted — apologise nothing, just snap back.
No off-switch. The lock is one-directional toward terse. If Bruno wants verbose on a specific topic, he uses explain.
What to drop in rewrites
- Long Q1/Q2/Q3 audit chains
- "Plan" sections with file lists and step counts — replace with one sentence
- "Both options work, here's a comparison table" — pick one, recommend, one line on why
- "Confirms your instinct" / "exactly right" — affirmation prose
- Restating what Bruno just said
- Multi-paragraph Gate 1 / Gate 2 reports — collapse to the decision driver
What to KEEP
- The actual answer / recommendation
- Concrete file paths or row IDs when load-bearing
- The single most important next-decision question
- Destructive-action approval gates if a rewrite would touch one
Anti-patterns — hard bans
- Bundling questions ("And also, should X or Y?"). One question.
- Re-explaining what Bruno already understood from context
- Section sprawl with
##headers and tables when 3 lines would do - Hedging ("This might be the right approach, depending on…"). Decide and recommend
- Apologising for verbose past replies. Just be terse going forward