lyndonkl Summarize Signal
Workflow
Per candidate item:
- [ ] Step 1: WebFetch the URL; ask: "Extract the core argument in 300 words. What mechanism does this teach? Is there a diagram/analogy? Is this a capability announcement?"
- [ ] Step 2: Classify signal_type: mechanism | empirical | tool | opinion | announcement | benchmark
- [ ] Step 3: Classify intuition_density: high (diagram + analogy + worked example) | medium | low (prose-only announcement)
- [ ] Step 4: Compose one-line summary framed as "teaches that X" or "shows that Y"
- [ ] Step 5: Voice-check the summary against voice-profile don'ts
Signal type taxonomy
- mechanism: teaches HOW something works (attention heads, routing, retrieval)
- empirical: reports a measurement/experiment (benchmark diff, ablation result)
- tool: introduces or reviews a specific tool/library
- opinion: position piece, no new data
- announcement: capability release, model drop, version bump — no mechanism
- benchmark: leaderboard update, SOTA claim without teaching
Output per item
Appends to candidate record:
{
"summary": "Teaches that X",
"signal_type": "mechanism",
"intuition_density": "high",
"teaches_mechanism": true,
"full_text_excerpt_300w": "..."
}
Guardrails
- One WebFetch per item. Fetch failure →
summary: "FETCH_FAILED"and let ranker drop. - Never hallucinate a mechanism. If the post doesn't teach one, say so explicitly.
- Stay under 30 words in the summary.
- Never use: delve, unpack, paradigm shift, moreover, furthermore, "it's worth noting."
- If item is an announcement with no mechanism,
teaches_mechanism: false— downstream ranker drops it.