Every AI presentation tool defaults to more. More slides, more context, more “just in case” background nobody asked for. A prompt engineer on r/PromptEngineering, u/netra_2428, kept running into this while building decks in Gamma. The obvious fix looked like trimming the request down to fewer asks. The real fix wasn’t asking for less. It was telling the model exactly what to cut.
For months, the author only prompted for what they wanted in the deck: the recommendation, the supporting data, the visuals. Then they added one line describing what to leave out. That single line changed the output more than every addition they’d tried before.
Add More vs. Cut More
The old way treats a prompt like a shopping list. You name every section you want, and the model builds all of them, padding the gaps with generic filler to look thorough. The new way treats a prompt like an edit note. You name what’s off-limits, and the model builds around that boundary instead of filling every inch of it.
Models over-include by default. Trained to seem complete, they’d rather add a slide than risk looking thin. That bias shows up everywhere, not just in decks: longer email drafts, extra caveats nobody asked for, background sections that just restate the brief. Telling the model what to drop pushes directly against that instinct. It works better than hoping your inclusion list is airtight enough to crowd out the padding on its own. A positive list only ever describes what to add, never what to stop adding.
The Line That Does the Work ✂️
Here’s the exact exclusion the author now ends every deck prompt with:
“no history section, no more than one slide of context, cut anything that isn’t the recommendation or its support”
Three moves, each doing separate work. “No history section” kills the padding slide almost every generator defaults to. “No more than one slide of context” forces prioritization instead of throat-clearing. The catch-all rule ties every remaining slide back to the recommendation or the evidence behind it, so nothing survives just because it sounds relevant.
Notice where it sits in the prompt, too. It comes last, after the actual ask, which means it functions as a closing filter rather than another requirement competing for the model’s attention. Run against Gamma, the result is a tight deck instead of one padded to look thorough. That’s the whole trade: fewer words telling the model what to add, more words telling it what to leave behind.
The idea held up under scrutiny, too. u/Choice_Usual_884 tested the same cut line against a messier brief in ChatGPT, outline only, and it still trimmed the fat. The model suggested moving support material out of the deck and into a live chat instead of stuffing it onto a slide nobody needed.
u/Decent-Signature6202 put it best: directing a model without a cut line is like directing a play. Give the actors free rein and they’ll add a thousand unnecessary gestures until someone says “stop moving your hands.” That’s the mental model worth keeping: the AI isn’t lazy by default, it’s overeager, and an exclusion line reins it back in.
How to Build Your Own Cut Line
Stealing this pattern doesn’t require a rewrite. Add it to the end of whatever prompt you’re already running.
- Finish your normal prompt first: audience, goal, key points, tone.
- Add the exclusion after it, in plain, absolute language. No hedging, no “try to avoid.”
- Cap anything that tends to balloon. One slide of context, three bullets per section, one paragraph of background.
- Close with a catch-all filter that ties every remaining piece back to your actual goal.
- Test it against a messy brief before trusting it on a clean one. Messy briefs expose whether the cut line actually holds.
Three variations worth stealing outside of slide decks:
- For sales emails: “no pricing recap, no feature list longer than three items.”
- For status updates: “no completed-task history, only blockers and next steps.”
- For meeting summaries: “no attendee list, no restating the agenda, only decisions and owners.”
The pattern isn’t specific to Gamma or to decks. Any generator that defaults to thoroughness responds the same way to a clear boundary. The habit it’s fighting is the same one everywhere: filling space to look useful instead of cutting to what’s actually useful.
The full thread on r/PromptEngineering has more exclusion lines worth stealing from other prompt engineers. Worth a scroll next time your AI output feels padded instead of sharp!
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does cutting content also strip out important risks or constraints?
No, but it depends on how you frame it. One user tested “cut anything that isn’t the recommendation or its support” and found it correctly preserved budget concerns and risks because they’re tied to the core case, not padding. Be specific about what counts as “support” for the recommendation. Vague exclusions might drop critical context you actually need.
Q: Can models hallucinate solutions when using exclusion prompts?
Yes. One user found that while the exclusion line removed history and fluff, the model invented a business-hours-chat workaround that wasn’t in the original notes. If fidelity to your source material is critical, add an explicit constraint: “don’t propose solutions or mitigations that aren’t already in the notes.”
Q: How specific should your “what to cut” instructions be?
Very specific wins. “Remove padding” is vague, “no history section, no more than one slide of context, cut anything that isn’t the recommendation or its support” gives the model clear boundaries. The more precise your exclusions, the less ambiguity and the fewer surprises.
the part of my ai presentation generator prompt that does the most work is the what-to-cut line
by u/netra_2428 in PromptEngineering