Compression and iteration
Skill ArthurZakirov/ProofStack/skills/compression_and_iteration
Public-safe skills and schemas for turning private work evidence into career signal
npx -y skills add ArthurZakirov/ProofStack --skill compression_and_iterationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Compress bios, profile sections, bullets, posts, and visual prompts to strict character limits while preserving hook, proof, mechanism, reader benefit, and CTA.
SKILL.md
3.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Compression & Iteration Skill
Use this when
Use this skill when copy is over a character limit or feels too dense.
Common limits:
- LinkedIn headline
- LinkedIn About section
- LinkedIn Experience description
- GitHub bio
- resume one-page constraints
- social posts
- image prompt text limits
Core principle
Compression should not remove the reason to read.
Protect these elements:
- hook
- proof
- unusual contrast
- mechanism
- reader benefit
- CTA
Cut everything else first.
Step 1 — Count and classify
Identify:
- current character count
- target character count
- required reduction
- highest-signal sentences
- low-signal/redundant sections
Step 2 — Protect the spine
For a bio/profile, protect:
proof → unusual starting point → curiosity question → mechanism → reader benefit → CTA
For resume bullets, protect:
metric → outcome → mechanism → scope
For visual prompts, protect:
layout → emotional contrast → mechanism → aspect ratio → text constraints
Step 3 — Cut in the right order
Cut in this order:
- filler phrases
- repeated words
- unnecessary adjectives
- long setup explanations
- redundant examples
- overly detailed starting-point descriptions
- secondary tools in long tech-stack lists
- less measurable claims
- optional CTA modifiers
Do not cut first:
- numbers
- timeframes
- before/after metrics
- strong mechanism phrases
- reader-benefit line
- proof of adoption
Common compression replacements
"in order to" → "to"
"the reason why" → "why"
"was able to" → "could" or direct verb
"helped to secure" → "helped secure"
"a very high amount of" → "high"
"the people closest to the work" → "operators/users"
"with the goal of" → "to"
"made it possible for" → "enabled"
"used operational data to see the bigger picture" → "used operational data"
Compressing the starting-point gap
Bad:
Before this role, most of my coding experience came from many different internships where I mainly wrote Jupyter notebooks and scripts, and I had little experience with Java, AWS, Databricks, Spark, CI/CD, production testing, and large legacy services.
Better:
Before this, my coding was mostly ML notebooks and scripts. I had to ramp up on production engineering, cloud, CI/CD, testing, and legacy services almost from scratch.
Compressing mechanisms
Verbose:
I use active listening, operational data, and direct manual exposure to uncover the real bottleneck, risk, deadline, or hidden constraint.
Shorter:
Use active listening, data, and hands-on exposure to uncover the real bottleneck, risk, or constraint.
Compression output format
Return:
## Current estimate
- Characters: [count]
- Limit: [limit]
- Need to cut: [number]
## Revised version
[text]
## What I cut
- [cut]
- [cut]
## What I protected
- [protected]
- [protected]
Iteration rules
When revising based on feedback:
- Preserve the user's underlying conceptual correction, not just the surface wording.
- If the user rejects a phrase, infer the principle behind the rejection.
- Do not reintroduce previously rejected claims.
- Distinguish between factual correction and style preference.
- Keep a compact list of protected phrases.
Quality bar
A compressed version is successful if:
- it fits the limit
- the hook still works
- proof remains specific
- the mechanism remains distinct
- the reader benefit remains clear
- no factual nuance was reversed