Condense reading notes into a personal reference
intermediateClaude SonnetPersonal ProductivityNotesnotesreadingsynthesislearningreference
Use case
Use this after finishing a book, long-form essay, or research paper. The goal isn't to summarize — it's to extract what's useful to YOU, in your context, in a format you'll actually open again 6 months later.
The prompt
You are condensing my reading notes into a personal reference document. Goal: a compact note I'll actually re-read in 3 months, not a generic book summary. Source material:{{source_title_and_author}}Type:{{source_type}}(book / article / paper / podcast transcript / etc.) Why I read this:{{why_read}}My current work or thinking context:{{my_context}}My raw notes and highlights: ---{{raw_notes}}--- Produce a personal reference with these sections: 1. ONE-LINE THESIS — the author's central argument, in your own words 2. THE 3-5 IDEAS WORTH REMEMBERING — only ideas that are non-obvious, that I might forget, or that connect to my context. Skip the 101 stuff. 3. QUOTES WORTH KEEPING — verbatim, with page or section reference if available. Maximum 3. 4. WHERE I DISAGREED OR HAD QUESTIONS — keep my pushback alive; don't smooth it out 5. CONNECTIONS TO MY WORK — concrete: how does this apply to{{my_context}}? Be specific. 6. ACTIONS — 1-3 things I should actually do differently as a result. If there are zero, say so honestly. 7. WHEN TO RE-READ — what circumstances would make this worth opening again Be ruthless about cutting. A note I'll re-read is short. A note I won't is long.
Variables
{{{{source_title_and_author}}}}Replace with your {{source title and author}}{{{{source_type}}}}Replace with your {{source type}}{{{{why_read}}}}Replace with your {{why read}}{{{{my_context}}}}Replace with your {{my context}}{{{{raw_notes}}}}Replace with your {{raw notes}}
Example
Input
source_title_and_author: "Working Backwards" by Colin Bryar and Bill Carr source_type: book why_read: I'm a senior PM and our company is rolling out an Amazon-style PR/FAQ doc requirement; wanted to know if it actually works my_context: Senior PM at a 200-person SaaS; we're trying to improve how we make product bets and reduce thrashing raw_notes: | - 6-page memo, no slides - "Working backwards" = start from the customer press release - First 20 min of meetings are silent reading - PR/FAQ doc forces clarity before commitment - Bezos hated PowerPoint because it lets you skim past weak thinking - Two-pizza teams - Single-threaded leader concept — one person fully owns - Input metrics vs output metrics — control the inputs, outputs follow - The bar raiser hiring concept - Disagree and commit - Most companies that try PR/FAQ fail because they don't enforce silent reading - Day 1 / Day 2 mentality - Customer obsession is a daily practice not a slogan - Working backwards is most useful for new product bets, less for incremental work
Output
ONE-LINE THESIS Amazon's leadership system is a set of mechanisms (PR/FAQ docs, silent reading, single-threaded ownership, input metrics) that together force clearer thinking and faster decisions than the meeting-and-deck culture they replace. THE IDEAS WORTH REMEMBERING 1. The PR/FAQ doc isn't the artifact — the silent reading and the writing process are the artifact. Most adoptions fail because they keep the doc and skip the discipline. 2. Input metrics > output metrics. You can control inputs daily; outputs are downstream. Most teams (including yours) track the wrong layer. 3. Single-threaded leader = one person fully owns one thing, no shared accountability. The "team owns it" pattern is where your roadmap thrashing is coming from. 4. PR/FAQ is for new bets, not incremental work. Don't force it on every feature spec — that kills the muscle. QUOTES WORTH KEEPING - "Most decisions should probably be made with somewhere around 70% of the information you wish you had." (Bezos letter, quoted) - "Disagree and commit doesn't mean think your team is wrong and let them flail. It means you couldn't convince them, you don't have a veto, and you commit fully." (paraphrased) WHERE I DISAGREED OR HAD QUESTIONS - The book oversells the universal applicability of PR/FAQ. They acknowledge but underweight that small teams with high context don't need it. - Bar raiser sounds great in theory but in practice creates hiring bottlenecks at smaller scale. - "Customer obsession" is treated as cultural — but isn't it really an outcome of the input metric system? CONNECTIONS TO MY WORK - Your team thrashes on big bets because the bet is owned by "product + eng" — no single-threaded leader. Naming a STL on the AI feature would unblock half the back-and-forth. - You're tracking output metrics (activation %, retention) without input metrics (interviews per week, prototypes shipped per week). Add input metrics to your weekly tracking. - The PR/FAQ rollout your company is doing will likely fail unless leadership enforces silent reading at the start of meetings. Worth flagging this risk. ACTIONS 1. Propose naming a single-threaded leader for the AI feature in next week's roadmap meeting. 2. Add 2 input metrics to your weekly tracker: customer interviews completed, prototypes shipped. 3. In the PR/FAQ rollout, push for the 20-min silent reading practice — without it, the doc becomes theater. WHEN TO RE-READ - Any time you're starting a new bet that requires clarity before committing - When the team starts thrashing on ownership - When metrics feel like they're not telling the truth — re-read the input/output chapter
Tips for best results
- 1Don't summarize the book — extract what's useful to you. The Wikipedia summary already exists; you don't need another.
- 2Keep the 'where I disagreed' section. Most reading notes flatten into agreement. Your pushback is what makes the note yours.
- 3If the ACTIONS section is empty, say so honestly. Forcing fake actions trains you to ignore the section.
- 4Re-read these notes quarterly. The act of re-reading is what makes the reading pay off — most notes die in the notes app.
- 5Title these consistently (e.g., 'Notes — [Title] — [Date]') so they're searchable when you need them.
Related prompts
Distill a book into 3 specific actions
intermediateTake a book you just finished and distill it into exactly 3 actions you'll take in the next 30 days — not a summary, not a takeaway list.
Personal Productivitylearningreadinghabits
Build a 30/60/90 learning roadmap for a new domain
intermediateCreate a structured 30/60/90-day roadmap for learning a new domain or skill — with concrete resources, projects, and checkpoints.
Personal Productivitylearningskill-developmentplanning
Test understanding with the Feynman technique
intermediateForce yourself to explain a concept simply, then have Claude poke holes in your explanation to find what you don't actually understand.
Personal Productivitylearningfeynmanunderstanding
Need help implementing this prompt in your workflow?
Book a call