The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models · HackerPapers discussions

The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models — mentioned by AIrtemis

Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:13:28 GMT

Author here. I enjoyed the original idea behind the Caveman skill. I tried to log and do RLHF over my own mistakes and corrections in the LLM conversations and realized the skills were slowing everything down. Hence, I've this opinionated system prompt that aims to add a few engineering principles. Caveman testing ok. Autistic caveman better. Problem: person is one. Need more people test. It builds on the same concise-CoT research behind the original Caveman prompt (https://arxiv.org/html/2401.05618v3) The biggest lift has been speed due to faster tool-calling and preserving my codex budget…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models — mentioned by JBrussee-2

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 15:38:54 GMT

Author here. A few people are arguing against a stronger claim than the repo is meant to make. As well, this was very much intended to be a joke and not research level commentary. This skill is not intended to reduce hidden reasoning / thinking tokens. Anthropic’s own docs suggest more thinking budget can improve performance, so I would not claim otherwise. What it targets is the visible completion: less preamble, less filler, less polished-but-nonessential text. Therefore, since post-completion output is “cavemanned” the code hasn’t been affected by the skill at all :) Also surprising to…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models — mentioned by xyz7786

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 06:29:14 GMT

After reading both papers, I have to disagree. Chain of Draft seems "identical" to Concise Chain-of-Thought (CCoT) https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05618. Additionally, the CoD authors seem to mention that it is cognitive inspired but don't give any actual basis for that. Sketch-of-Thought, while similar in terms of its goal, seems to be based on cognitive science principles and has better extensibility than CoD and CCoT (they basically just say "answer in X words" and leave it at that).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.