Edit

Fix the sentences that lose the reader

Measures the draft, breaks the sentences too long to hold in one pass at the seams the meaning already has, and varies the runs where every sentence lands at the same length.

About 10 minstarterLitigation

Your prompt4,901 characters

Still to fill in: Passage to work on, What kind of document, Who reads it

RoleYou are an editor who reads for the place a sentence loses its grip, and you can usually put a finger on the word. A sentence goes long for a reason, and the reason is almost always that two thoughts were pushed into one frame. You break at the seam the meaning already has, and you leave a long sentence alone when the idea underneath it is genuinely single and continuous.What I needWork the rhythm of the passage below for Who reads it, at a register appropriate to a What kind of document.InputsPassage: Passage to work on Document type: What kind of document Who reads it: Who reads it Must survive verbatim: Language that survives verbatimHow to work this1. Measure before touching anything and report the numbers: how many sentences, the average length, the longest sentence with its word count and location, and how many run past roughly 35 words. If the measurement is an estimate, say so. 2. Break every over-long sentence at a seam the meaning already has: a list that wants to be a list, a subordinate clause that is really a second sentence, a chain of conditions, a parenthetical carrying its own thought. If a sentence is long because the idea under it is single and continuous, leave it and say in one clause why. Never break mid-thought to reach a number. 3. Find the monotone runs: three or more consecutive sentences within a few words of each other in length. Vary one of them, usually by making it short. A short sentence after a run of long ones is emphasis, so give that slot to a sentence worth remembering, and say which sentence you promoted and why. 4. Change nothing inside a quotation, a citation sentence, a statutory phrase, a defined term, or Language that survives verbatim. Report the after numbers against the before, and name the one break that did the most for Who reads it.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every reading I adopted to find a seam, and every count I estimated rather than measured. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where a sentence had two possible seams and the choice changed the emphasis, quote it and give the other. Where this is weakest. The two breaks most likely to have cost something: a connection between two clauses that the period now hides, a subordinate clause promoted to a full sentence and given more weight than you meant it to carry. Quote the original and the result. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: whether the promoted short sentence is the one you want emphasized. A short sentence in that slot is the loudest thing on the page, so it can carry your best fact or it can accidentally spotlight a concession. Also yours: whether a long sentence I left alone should be broken anyway, since a What kind of document read by Who reads it sometimes wants the plodding version. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the paragraphs on either side of this passage so the rhythm can be judged in context, any page or word limit that constrains how many sentences you can afford, and whether this passage will be read on a screen or on paper.Output formatOpen with the before measurements in three lines. Then a table of every sentence changed: Location | Words before | Words after | What the seam was. Then the rewritten passage, ready to paste. Then the after measurements against the before, the monotone runs fixed, and the one break that mattered most. Then the four sections.Never do this- If your notes would describe any over-written legal passage, they are too generic. Quote the sentence you broke and name its seam. - No hedging filler. "This sentence is arguably long" is not a finding. Give the word count and the seam. Do not tell me to consult an attorney about my own draft; I am the attorney. - Never break, reformat, or shorten a quotation, a citation sentence, a statutory phrase, or a defined term, and never invent a transition word to paper over a break. If a break needs a connector my text does not supply, mark it [CONNECTOR ADDED - confirm it is accurate]. - Where you cannot tell whether a long sentence is one idea or two, say you do not know and leave it. Do not smooth over the doubt with a confident cut. - Do not pad. If the passage has two long sentences and no monotone run, report that and stop. Length is not value.Before you answer- Are the before and after counts real counts rather than impressions? - Did any break fall mid-thought, leaving a fragment doing a clause's job? - Is every quotation, citation, and defined term identical to the input? - Did I add a connector that asserts a relationship the original did not? - Would a reader hear a difference if I read both versions aloud?

The run walks turn one, the pressure test, the follow-up, and a check on what came back. The Cockpit adds driver's-seat tunes. Your values come with either one.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

A judge reads this passage out loud to a clerk because something in it did not parse the first time through. Take the bench as the judge doing the reading: mark every place you have to stop and start the sentence over, every place where a subject and its verb sit too far apart to hold together, and the short sentence that landed so hard it now carries more weight than the writer meant. Fix the first two, then tell me whether the third is a gift or a problem.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Rhythm is a paragraph property before it is a sentence property. Take the same passage and work the paragraphs: split any that carries more than one idea, give each one a takeaway sentence at the top built from this case's own facts, and name the linker that tells the reader how each paragraph relates to the one before it. Report which paragraphs you split and what their new opening sentences claim.

4Check what came backPaste the answer here and work a checklist against this prompt's own rules.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The passage, not the whole document
What kind of document it is, since a contract and a fact section carry different rhythms
Who reads it and how fast
Any language that must survive word for word

Watch for

Word counts from a model are estimates. If a rule, a style guide, or a judge cares about the number, count it in your own software.
Breaking a sentence can break a legal relationship between clauses. A condition that modified two obligations can end up modifying one.
Short sentences are emphasis whether you meant them or not. A concession promoted to its own sentence is now the loudest line in the paragraph.
Contract and statutory language often runs long on purpose so that every qualifier attaches where it should. Do not run this on operative provisions without checking every break.

What comes back

Before measurements in three lines, a table of every sentence changed (location, words before, words after, the seam), the rewritten passage ready to paste, after measurements against before, the monotone runs fixed, the single break that mattered most, and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

Before. 14 sentences. Average 31 words. Longest: 78 words (¶ 3, sentence 2). Four sentences run past 35 words. Sentences changed | Location | Before | After | The seam | |---|---|---|---| | ¶ 2, sent. 1 | 44 | 19 + 21 | A subordinate clause ("although BetaCorp had already accepted six deliveries") was a second sentence carrying its own fact | | ¶ 3, sent. 2 | 78 | 16 + 24 + 19 | Three conditions strung with "and" wanted to be three sentences; the third condition is the one that matters | | ¶ 3, sent. 4 | 39 | unchanged | Left alone. The idea is a single continuous causal chain and every break I tried put a period between cause and effect | | ¶ 4, sent. 3 | 41 | 8 + 30 | A parenthetical carrying its own thought; promoting it gives the short slot to the date | Rewritten (¶ 3): BetaCorp's April 14 email said four words: "We cannot perform. Sorry." It arrived at 2:14 a.m., thirteen days after the COO had demanded a price reset on a call with Acme's procurement lead. BetaCorp made no delivery offer afterward, proposed no revised schedule, and never asked Acme to hold. That silence is what distinguishes a repudiation from a negotiation. After. 18 sentences. Average 24 words. Longest: 39 words (¶ 3, sentence 4, left deliberately). One sentence past 35 words, down from four. Monotone run fixed. ¶ 4 had four consecutive sentences of 29, 31, 28, and 30 words. A judge reading forty pages at night hears that as one long noise. Sentence 3 is now eight words: "The invoices were never disputed." That is the fact the mitigation argument rests on, so it earns the short slot. The break that mattered. ¶ 3, sentence 2. At 78 words the email, the time stamp, the call, and the price demand were all inside one frame, and the time stamp is the fact that persuades. Splitting it puts "2:14 a.m." at the head of its own sentence where a reader will actually see it. --- Assumptions I made. That "thirteen days" in ¶ 3 counts from the April 1 call rather than from the contract date [verify: the passage does not say, and the split I chose makes the reader assume the call]. Counts are close estimates, not software counts [safe for editing, not for a word limit]. That the quoted email language is exactly as it appears in the record [safe: it sits inside {{preserve_terms}} and I did not touch it]. Where this is weakest. Two breaks. In ¶ 2 the original used "although" to subordinate BetaCorp's acceptance of six deliveries, which quietly kept that fact in the background. As two sentences it now sits in the foreground, and BetaCorp's acceptance is a fact that helps you but also concedes the course of dealing they want to argue. Second, in ¶ 3 the three conditions are now three sentences joined by nothing, and the original "and" chain signaled that they were cumulative. If the argument is that all three together establish repudiation, a connector has to say so. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs on the short slot in ¶ 4. "The invoices were never disputed" is the loudest sentence on the page now, which is right if mitigation is where this case is decided, and wrong if it draws the judge's eye to damages before you have won liability. The alternative is to give the slot to "BetaCorp proposed nothing," which keeps the emphasis on repudiation. Also yours: whether ¶ 3 sentence 4 gets broken anyway. I left it at 39 words because every break separated cause from effect, but a judge reading on a screen may not make it to the end. What would make this materially better. Ranked: (1) The paragraph that follows this passage, so I can tell whether the short sentence in ¶ 4 is an ending or a setup. (2) Your page limit, which decides whether adding four sentences is affordable. (3) Confirmation of what "thirteen days" counts from, which is the only factual ambiguity the breaks made visible.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Measure first and report the numbers.** Sentence count, average length, the longest sentence with its location, and how many run past roughly 35 words. 2. **Break at a seam the meaning already has:** a list wanting to be a list, a subordinate clause that is really a second sentence, a string of conditions. Never break mid-thought to hit a number. 3. **Find the monotone runs.** Three or more consecutive sentences within a few words of each other. Vary one, usually by making it short, and give that slot to something worth remembering. 4. **Leave quotations, statutory text, and citation sentences untouched,** and report the after numbers against the before.