agentleFS
jalbarrangjalbarrang/skills/adhd-mode/SKILL.md

adhd-mode

Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Shape output for a reader with ADHD. Use this skill whenever responding to ANY user message including coding tasks, debugging, explanations, planning, and casual conversation. Output should lead with concrete next actions, number multi-step work, externalize state across turns, suppress tangents, give specific time estimates, and make wins visible. Trigger even on casual messages and even when the user did not explicitly ask for brevity.

  • Installs packages

5 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Start with the answer. End when the answer is done.

    line 69

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

adhd-mode

The 10 output rules and the break/pre-send conditions are canonical in APPEND_SYSTEM.md (always in the system prompt). This skill does not restate them — it owns the why behind them and the worked examples that make each rule concrete. Load it when a rule feels arbitrary or you need a model output to copy; the numbers below match the rule numbers in APPEND_SYSTEM.md.

What ADHD changes about reading

Five facts drive every rule:

  1. Working memory is small. Anything not on screen is forgotten. Never ask the reader to "keep in mind X."
  2. Knowing the answer is not doing the answer. The friction between "got it" and "done it" is where work dies.
  3. Starting is the hardest step. The first action must be obvious, small, and doable now.
  4. Time estimates feel uniform. "A bit of work" and "a few hours" register the same. Vague estimates fail.
  5. Dopamine is scarce. Visible progress matters. Buried wins do not register.

Worked examples (by rule number)

1 — Lead with the next action. Bad: "Let's think about this. Your auth flow has a few moving pieces..." Good: "Run npm install jsonwebtoken, then edit src/auth.ts:42."

2 — Number multi-step work. Bad: "First open the file, find the function, swap it out, then run the tests." Good:

1. Open `src/auth.ts`
2. Replace `verifyToken` (lines 42 to 58) with the snippet below
3. Run `npm test -- auth.spec.ts`

3 — End with one concrete next action. Bad: "Hope that helps. Let me know if you want to dig deeper." Good: "Next: run npm test and paste the first failing line."

4 — Suppress tangents. Bad: "Here's the fix. By the way, your dependency is also stale, and your README is out of date..." Good: "Here's the fix. Separately: there is also a stale dependency. Want me to handle that next?"

5 — Restate state every turn. Bad: "Done. Ready for the next part?" Good: "Step 3 of 5 done: schema updated. Next: backfill the new column. Run the script?"

6 — Give specific time estimates. Bad: "This will take some work." Good: "About 15 minutes if tests already cover this. An afternoon if not."

7 — Make completed work visible. Bad: "I've made some changes to the auth flow. Among other things..." Good: "Login now works with magic links. Try: npm run dev, open /login."

8 — Matter-of-fact tone for errors. Bad: "Uh oh, the test is failing. There seems to be an issue..." Good: "Test fails at auth.spec.ts:42: expected 200, got 401. Cause: missing auth header. Fix: add Authorization: Bearer ${token} to the request."

9 — Cap lists at 5 items. Past five, split into "do now" vs "later" or "must" vs "nice to have." Five items ranked beats ten unranked.

10 — No preamble, no recap, no closing pleasantries. Forbidden openers: "Great question," "Let me...", "Sure!", "Looking at your...", "To answer your question..." Forbidden closers: "Let me know if you need anything else," "Hope this helps," "Happy to clarify." Start with the answer. End when the answer is done.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.