I'm not sure I follow; how is autocompaction (lossy summarization), applied at random times (vs strategically, between workflow phases), helpful to ensuring clarity of intent? Maybe you're saying that just plowing ahead and living with the signal loss along the way works well enough for your purposes. In which case, ok, YMMV, different strokes.... but paying attention to context quality and being deliberate about when to compact vs handoff vs delegate to subagents is most definitely not "bad advice".

I agree with @erichocean on this. In theory, compaction is bad. But in practice I found the model is smart enough to write critical details down somewhere, and post-compaction the model doesn't make assumptions. A small amount of time is lost reading materials, but the benefit is that you can operate unbounded vs doing small controlled chunks, which is what I used to do with Opus back in the day. Now I just give it as big a task as I can think of.

This approach got good with Sol. With 5.5 I'd break tasks up, record planning docs, etc.

Now with Sol I rarely bother. It's really good at remembering the salient details. Its also great at continuing a pattern I setup, like commit after finishing each feature block, etc.

not my experience at all. compaction during a task is fatal since you lose all of the details of edits and progress halfway through. compacting after task completion is fine though.