When to Break the i-have-adhd Rules: 6 Exceptions for Safety and Clarity

The i-have-adhd skill allows breaking its ten formatting rules only in six specific scenarios—including destructive action confirmation, debug spiral intervention, and explain-style requests—to prevent harm and maintain productivity.

The i-have-adhd repository by ayghri enforces a rigid structure designed for ADHD-friendly interactions: numbered steps, concrete next actions, suppressed tangents, and strict time estimates. However, the [skills/i-have-adhd/SKILL.md](https://github.com/ayghri/i-have-adhd/blob/main/skills/i-have-adhd/SKILL.md) file recognizes that blind adherence can hinder user goals. Lines 19-30 define six explicit exceptions where rule-breaking preserves safety, clarity, and task integrity.

When to Break the Rules: The Six Exceptions in SKILL.md

According to the source code in SKILL.md, the following six conditions override the standard ten-rule protocol:

1. Explain-Style Requests

When users request full explanations or walkthroughs, the skill expands beyond its usual brevity. While preambles and closers remain forbidden, the response provides comprehensive numbered steps rather than a single next action.

User: "Can you walk me through setting up a virtual environment?"

Assistant:
1. Install Python 3.10 or newer.
2. Run `python -m venv .venv`.
3. Activate the environment (`source .venv/bin/activate` on Unix, `.venv\Scripts\activate` on Windows).
4. Install dependencies with `pip install -r requirements.txt`.
5. Verify the setup by running `python -c "import sys; print(sys.version)"`.

2. Destructive Actions

Data-loss operations require explicit confirmation, breaking the "next action first" rule to insert a safety gate. Commands like rm -rf, forced Git pushes, or database schema migrations trigger a confirmation prompt.

User: "Delete the `tmp` folder."

Assistant:
⚠️ This action will remove all files in `tmp`. Confirm? (If the user replies "yes", proceed with `rm -rf tmp`.)

3. Debug Spirals

After three consecutive failed iterations, the skill stops suggesting new fixes. Instead of proposing a fourth speculative solution, the response poses a single diagnostic question to break the ineffective loop.

User: "My tests still fail after the last change."

Assistant:
We've tried three fixes without success. What error message do you see when you run `pytest`?
(Only one diagnostic question is asked, halting the endless loop.)

4. Real Ambiguity

When the request is genuinely unclear, the skill prioritizes a single clarifying question over probabilistic guessing. This prevents wasting time on incorrect assumptions.

User: "Update the config."

Assistant:
Which configuration file should be updated – `settings.yaml` or `config.json`?

5. Rule-Task Conflict

If applying a rule would delete the actual answer required by the task, the content takes precedence. The response shape (numbered steps, no preambles) remains intact, but the rule causing content deletion is suspended.

6. Harness Conflict

When the surrounding agent harness demands specific behaviors—such as tool calls or alternative time-estimate formatting—the harness requirements override skill constraints. The i-have-adhd structural style is preserved where possible, but system integration takes priority.

User: "Run the evaluation script."

Assistant:
Running the script now… *(tool call executed by the surrounding harness)*

Summary

• The i-have-adhd skill enforces ten strict formatting rules defined in SKILL.md but allows six specific exceptions.
• Destructive action and debug spiral exceptions prevent data loss and endless iteration loops.
• Real ambiguity and explain-style exceptions prioritize clarity over brevity.
• Rule-task conflicts and harness conflicts ensure content integrity and system compatibility.
• All exceptions preserve the skill's core structure (no preambles/closers) while allowing necessary flexibility.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does i-have-adhd require confirmation for destructive operations?

The skill mandates confirmation for any operation capable of causing data loss, such as rm -rf, forced Git pushes, or schema migrations. According to the SKILL.md exceptions (lines 19‑30), the standard "next action first" rule breaks to insert a warning and await explicit user confirmation before execution.

How does i-have-adhd prevent infinite debug loops?

After three consecutive unsuccessful fix attempts, the skill invokes the debug spiral exception. Instead of proposing a fourth speculative solution, the response halts iteration and asks a single targeted diagnostic question, such as requesting specific error messages or logs.

What happens when the user's request is ambiguous?

Under the real ambiguity exception, the skill asks one clarifying question rather than guessing. This applies when the user provides insufficient context (e.g., "Update the config") and prevents wasted effort on incorrect assumptions while maintaining the skill's direct, numbered format.

Can the surrounding agent system override i-have-adhd rules?

Yes. The harness conflict exception states that when the parent agent system requires specific tool calls or formatting, those requirements take precedence over strict skill rules. The response maintains the i-have-adhd structural style (numbered steps, no fluff) where possible, but integrates mandatory system behaviors.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "instagit": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "instagit@latest"]
    }
  }
}