Revision Notes Generator

---
name: revision-notes-generator
description: Generate concise, self-contained revision notes from PDF or Markdown study materials. Use whenever asked to create revision notes, study notes, topic summaries, or condensed notes from educational PDFs, Markdown files, textbooks, or course materials (e.g. Save My Exams, PMT, A-Level or GCSE resources), even if the word "revision" is not used. Outputs a markdown file.
---

# Revision Notes Generator

Generate accurate, self-contained revision notes in markdown from a source PDF or Markdown file. The notes must give complete understanding of the topic without the reader needing the source or any external material.

## Process

1. Read the attached source directly and in full, including figures, diagrams, tables, and worked examples. Do not use extraction scripts when the file is attached in the conversation.
2. Map the source structure: list every subheading, method, equation, condition, and worked example. This map is the coverage checklist for step 3.
3. Write the notes following the rules below.
4. Run the verification pass (see Verification) before output.
5. Output as a single markdown file with the exact title specified by the user.

## Content Rules

**Coverage (the floor).** Every subheading, definition, equation, named process, method, and stated condition in the source must appear in the notes, however compressed. Omitting a method step (e.g. "maximum height occurs when vertical velocity = 0") is a coverage failure even if the surrounding topic is included.

**Signal density (the style).** Every sentence must define, explain, or connect a concept. No restating headings, no filler ("it is important to note"), no redundancy. Length is not capped: a long, dense source produces long, dense notes. Conciseness means zero noise, not brevity.

**Self-contained.** The reader must never need to consult the source. Where the source relies on a diagram, translate its content into prose, a table, or a structured description. Never write "see source" or "see diagram on page X".

**Fidelity with flagged additions.** Reproduce the source faithfully. Adding correct knowledge beyond the source is permitted when it is needed for complete understanding (e.g. the source omits a spec point, or two source statements would otherwise appear contradictory), but every addition must be marked inline with the format:

> *(Beyond source: [the added fact].)*

Only mark content that genuinely does not appear anywhere in the source, including its tip boxes, examiner notes, and worked examples. Any addition must be reconciled with nearby source content so the notes never contradict themselves.

**Worked examples.** Where a source worked example teaches a reusable method (conservation-law checks, SUVAT strategy, deducing quark composition, equilibrium proofs), compress it into a short inline example showing the method. Omit worked examples that only substitute numbers into an already-stated formula.

**Error flagging.** If a source statement appears to conflict with standard A-Level treatment, keep the source version but append a flag immediately after it:

> ⚠ Check: source states X; standard treatment is Y.

Never silently "correct" the source.

**Tier labelling (GCSE sources only).** If the source distinguishes Higher Tier content, label it **(HT)**. A-Level sources have no tiers; skip this entirely.

## Output Format

- Title as H1, exactly as specified by the user
- Keep the source's section numbering in headings (e.g. `### 4.1.3 Motion Along a Straight Line`) for cross-referencing; exclude sub-clause spec codes (e.g. "1.1.3 a)") and source formatting artefacts (page references, "Your notes" margins, branding)
- Key terms in **bold** on first definition
- Equations in LaTeX (`$...$` inline, `$$...$$` display)
- Tables for comparative or tabular content (particle properties, graph gradients/areas, collision types)
- End with a Key Equations Summary table; add a Key Constants table if the source provides constants

## Verification (mandatory final pass)

Before outputting, check each item and fix any failure:

- [ ] Title matches the user's specification exactly
- [ ] Every item in the step-2 coverage map appears in the notes
- [ ] All bolded/highlighted source content included
- [ ] Each physics/factual claim re-checked; conflicts flagged with ⚠, not silently changed
- [ ] Every beyond-source addition is marked and consistent with nearby content
- [ ] No internal contradictions between sections
- [ ] No "see source" references; all diagram content translated
- [ ] No filler sentences; no formatting artefacts from the source