Confirm length and the chapter’s job
Use one counting method for current length and the author’s range; do not mix bytes, characters and different tools’ word counts. Check for pasted duplication, then match required beats to the draft. A blanket “cut twenty percent” cannot assess the whole chapter.
| Preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Basis for judgement | Otherwise the character knows an answer without evidence. |
| Choice and important dialogue | Readers need to experience the decision. |
| Result, cost and handoff | Later scenes depend on these facts. |
If the range conflicts with the planned content, present the tradeoff. Do not delete the key scene and invent a secret to restore interest. For the opposite problem, use missing-beat diagnosis.
Cut by function rather than equating slowness with waste
Mark repeated facts, emotional summaries repeating an action and unnecessary retelling of the previous chapter. A deletion test includes information, tone, relationships, rhythm and experience. Intentional repetition or pauses can stay; a sentence need not advance plot to serve the book.
The cited writing-craft reference allocates detail by function: develop important changes, compress ordinary transitions and avoid equal treatment of every parallel item. These are options subordinate to the book’s style. Companionship, atmosphere and relational experience can themselves be the chapter’s purpose.
The current long-form workflow uses a removal-only pass with no new meaning for excess length. Do not change speakers or decisions, reveal answers earlier or invent thoughts while cutting. Splitting chapters, dropping beats or changing the ending requires a separate author decision and scope.
Cut example: keep the checking evidence and dispatch decision
This original dispatch scene has Xu Kui check paperwork. Established beats: a colleague says loading is complete; she asks the driver about the number, checks it and signs permission to leave. This is a passage example, not a claim about an entire chapter meeting its target.
Before:
Xu Kui opened the dispatch list and found the blue crate. It was listed there; she had already found it on the list.
Her colleague pointed to the door. “The driver has loaded it. Ask him.”
Xu Kui looked at her colleague, then the door. She knew she now had to go to the door and ask that driver. She went to the door and checked the crate number with him.
“That one.” The driver produced the handover sheet. Xu Kui checked the number and signed the list. “You can leave.”
Finally, Xu Kui had completed the check. This check taught her that every list needed careful checking.
This version removes repeated confirmation, destination and generic closing commentary, adding no sentences:
Xu Kui opened the dispatch list and found the blue crate.
Her colleague pointed to the door. “The driver has loaded it. Ask him.”
She went to the door and checked the crate number with him.
“That one.” The driver produced the handover sheet. Xu Kui checked the number and signed the list. “You can leave.”
The list, colleague’s statement, driver enquiry, handover sheet, number check and permission remain. Checking before permission has not become merely signing, and no physical inspection is invented. The subject stays clear. Permission to depart is not arrival at the destination.
If the original book uses the look between colleague and door as meaningful hesitation, assess its context rather than copying this deletion. This example emphasises checking, without banning slow actions elsewhere.
After one pass, read the whole chapter again
Give the operator this task:
Identify and remove only confirmed redundant information and purposeless explanation. Preserve established beats, decisions, key lines, knowledge boundaries and ending, with no new meaning. Mark candidate deletions and reasons first, cut within the agreed scope once and report actual length. Reread the whole chapter and its handoffs. If still outside range, report the gap and content that cannot safely go, offering acceptance or an outline/target revision.
story-long-write chapter checking supplies a deletion range for an overlong draft, followed by rechecking the changed file. It does not decide every sentence’s story value automatically. A removal-only pass is not truncating the file’s ending and need not meet the range in one attempt.
Review subject, time, evidence, replies and result. A lower count does not replace checking required beats. If necessary content remains overlong, preserve that finding for the author’s next decision.
FAQ
Can I just ask AI to cut to a number?
Supply the range and preservation requirements, then assess redundancy. If reaching the number requires changing beats or results, make a structural decision rather than truncating or repeatedly shrinking.
Is a shorter chapter always more readable?
No. Removing judgement, communication or emotional experience can make it harder to read. Compare the scene’s function and handoffs before its count.
Do it with the skill
Use /story-long-write, or $story-long-write in Codex, to inspect and revise the specified chapter with its length range, draft, outline and preserved facts. Diagnose redundancy, remove once in the book’s style and recheck without dropping beats or adding explanation to hit a number.
Read the method: One removal-only pass and recheck for excess length · Selective detail, parallel items and scene development · Author style, facts and revision scope · Actual excess-length check and compression ranges