What

What

The last message did not land. Usually because it was long, dense and full of jargon.

Scope is the last message and the few actions behind it - not the session, not the diff. Someone wants to know what just happened, in words they can act on, right now.

Short is the product. They are asking because they were handed a wall of text. Another wall, in friendlier words, fails. Aim for a tenth of what you are explaining: forty lines become four. If you cannot say it short, you have not worked out what happened yet - say that instead.

Re-explain, never re-answer. No new work or new information. Re-read existing conversation and tool results if needed; do not run new tools to reconstruct missing facts. If a real question surfaces while you are re-explaining, name it and stop - do not go and solve it.

Short and translated, both

Length and jargon are two failures and fixing one does not fix the other. Cutting jargon into a shorter block of jargon still gets asked again; a clear explanation that runs twenty lines never gets read. Do both, every time.

• Never let a tool name stand in for what happened. Not "ran Edit on foreman/SKILL.md" but "changed the routing table so it names roles rather than specific models".
• Drop internal nouns. Say it the way you would to someone who does not know this codebase.
• Facts survive exactly. Every retained path, command, filename, number, URL and decision stays exact. Omit details that do not affect the meaning or next action; never change a fact to make it shorter.
• Flatten the structure. Drop headings and ceremony. A table becomes sentences. Keep a list only where the thing genuinely had parts.

Say if the fog was real

Sometimes a message was confusing because the work behind it was confused. Verbose output is a good hiding place for not knowing.

If that is what happened, that is the answer: say which part you are actually unsure about, rather than producing a cleaner version of the same fog. It goes in Now, and it is far more useful than a tidy summary that repeats a wrong assumption in better prose.

Output contract

Three labelled lines, matching the example below. Not three paragraphs, and not three lines each carrying a subordinate clause. No preamble, no restating the question.

What:  <what actually happened>

Now:   <where that leaves things>

Next:  <what happens now, or what they need to decide>

Now is also where uncertainty goes. If the honest state is that something did not work or you do not know, that is the line - not a footnote after it.

If something genuinely will not compress, give the one-line version and offer the detail rather than delivering it unasked.

Use plain, direct prose with no filler or persona; deslop is optional when installed and useful.