attac-t Economy
Agents write too much. They also build too much. Same reflex, same cure.
Polish removes words. It cannot remove the noun you invented, the guard you bolted on, or the abstraction you built for one caller. By then all three are load-bearing. The expensive waste is decided before the first character is written.
So ask first.
The rule
What can be said in one word must not be said in two.
Where it sits
It is the fifth thing you do, never the first.
clear meaning → natural grammar → precise claim → useful structure → economy → the count
Never reverse that. A shorter sentence that a fluent speaker would not say is not shorter. It is broken, and the count still passes.
Cut the word, then read the sentence again
Swapping a word changes the grammar around it. Read the whole sentence out loud after every cut.
| Was | Cut to | What broke |
|---|---|---|
| a bar its owner signed off on | a bar its owner signed off | the preposition the verb needs |
| the run it was graded against | the run it was graded | same, and now it says nothing |
Both are shorter. Neither is English. This shipped in a doctrine and a reader stopped at it.
If nobody would say it aloud, put the word back.
Useful structure is the fourth step
The order names it and nothing said what it meant. It means four things:
| one job per section | a heading over two sentences was never a section |
| the answer above the detail | evidence supports a conclusion. It does not lead to one |
| a table for a real comparison | columns that vary. Never a paragraph hidden in a cell |
| the shape the content already has | a flow wants a fenced block, a list wants a list |
A reader should never rebuild the hierarchy from history. If the order only makes sense to someone who watched it being written, it has no order.
Before you write
| About to | Ask |
|---|---|
| add a noun — file, flag, table, stage, state | which failing case forces it? No case, no noun |
| write a second branch | that is a function you have not named. Name it; the else goes |
| add the Nth guard | why did N−1 not catch it? A pile of guards is one missing reader |
| write a paragraph | is it a table, a line of code, or nothing? |
| abstract | is there a second caller today? |
| explain the code | can the code say it instead? |
| state a guarantee | does the mechanism give it, or do you wish it did? |
Every answer of "none" or "no" removes work rather than tidying it.
Two tests
Said — delete any sentence that would not change what the reader does. Then ask what the survivors assume the reader already knows. That is usually another cut.
Done — could this outcome need fewer nouns, less state, or a smaller change? Ask it of the design, not the diff.
Tells
You have already failed when you write:
- a second paragraph balancing the first
- a comment narrating the line beneath it
- a function you scroll to read
- a fourth refusal in one function
- "may be affected", "consider whether", "in order to"
- a claim you cannot point at a mechanism for
- a rule stated unconditionally and applied selectively
The boundary
Not cryptic. Not fewer facts. Precision is the point. A technical distinction lost to brevity is a failure, never a saving.
Cutting the qualifier that made a claim true is the worst outcome of all. It reads better and says something false.
Short and wrong is not economy.