You ask for the next step and get six paragraphs before you find it. I Have ADHD tries to fix that friction with a set of instructions for your coding agent: action first, manageable steps, fewer detours. The idea makes sense. What's worth testing is how much the response actually changes, and what gets lost along the way.
What you need to know
- It's an instructions skill, open source with an MIT license. Subscription or agent access is separate.
- In Claude Code, activate it with
/i-have-adhd. Installing it doesn't keep it on for all sessions. - In our comparison it shortened two responses and slightly lengthened a third. It doesn't guarantee better or always shorter answers.
- You can request full explanations and exit the mode with
stop adhd mode. - My take: start with Claude Code's Concise style if verbose output is your only issue. This skill adds more value when you need numbered steps, visible status, and a clear next action.
This review is part of the roundup of skills for Claude Code, Codex, and other coding agents.
What I Have ADHD Does, and What It Doesn't Prove
Ayoub Ghriss's project (ayghri on GitHub) incorporates ten rules to structure responses. Among them: lead with the action, number multi-step work, make completed items visible, track state, and cut filler preambles and sign-offs.
Not everything is about cutting. The state-tracking rule can add text. Closing with a next action can add another line. The goal is that you can act without having to reconstruct the thread each time.
The name points to ADHD and the README cites The Adult ADHD Tool Kit as inspiration. That doesn't make the repository clinical evidence of efficacy. What's being evaluated here is instructions and agent responses, not health benefits or any supposed universal way people with ADHD think.
| Format | Instructions skill with installation adapters. |
|---|---|
| License | MIT. |
| Cost | The code is free. You need access to the agent you use it with. |
| Documented compatibility | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, and others. Each integration has its own setup and activation method. |
| Version reviewed | Commit 6f1f982, checked on September 11, 2026. |
| What we tested here | Skill content, hook activation, and six Claude Opus 4.6 responses with and without injected rules. Not every integration was tested. |
How to Turn It On, and Off
The documented installation for Claude Code uses these two commands:
claude plugin marketplace add ayghri/i-have-adhd
claude plugin install i-have-adhd@i-have-adhdThen invoke it with /i-have-adhd. To exit during a conversation, the skill itself recognizes stop adhd mode and normal mode. To disable the plugin, the project documents claude plugin disable i-have-adhd.
Persistent mode is OPTIONAL. The startup hook checks whether an activation file called .i-have-adhd-always exists in the Claude config folder. We ran it with a temporary folder: without that file it emitted no instructions; with it the rules loaded. No changes to the standard agent configuration were needed.
There's another nuance that substantially changes the picture: the skill text includes exceptions. If you ask for an explanation, it should develop it fully. If there's genuine ambiguity, it should ask. And if the format conflicts with the task, it should prioritize the task.
Calling it a rigid filter that always strips context would therefore be wrong.
A Video Demo, with Context
This tutorial from AI Stack Engineer, in English, walks through the I Have ADHD rules and shows installation and use in OpenCode. It runs nine minutes and links to the same ayghri repository reviewed here.
This is an external demo in OpenCode, not a Marketing Ultra session, and not a controlled comparison with Claude Code. It's useful for seeing how the skill is used; our Claude Opus 4.6 test follows below.
The Test: Same Questions, With and Without the Rules
For this review, six automated runs were conducted: three marketing questions, each with and without the skill body. Claude Opus 4.6 was used, low effort, independent sessions, the same base instruction, and no tools or ad account access.
The rules were added to the test message. This lets you observe their effect on the response, but it is NOT equivalent to testing the installed plugin over a full working day. A single run per variant also can't measure reliability, average savings, or effects on reasoning quality.
| Case | Without rules | With rules |
|---|---|---|
| CPA and ROAS | 144 words | 111 words |
| Full explanation | 364 words | 314 words |
| Request without data | 77 words | 85 words |
On the calculation, both responses returned a CPA of €30 and ROAS of 3. The variant with rules was shorter and more directive. When asked for a beginner-level explanation, both developed examples and tables: the skill didn't flatten it into a telegraphic answer.
Faced with "The campaign has got worse. Tell me what change to make today," with no data provided, both asked for information. With the rules there was a numbered list and a more concrete next step.
The word count treats each space-separated block in the original output as a word, including Markdown markers. You can download the questions and all six full responses to check for yourself, not just the example that looks best.
How Both Responses Begin
The question was the same: calculate CPA and ROAS with €1,200 in cost, 40 conversions, and €3,600 in value, and propose the next step before scaling the budget. These are the literal openings of both responses, laid out for comparison.
The difference is smaller than the promise of turning a chaotic response into a perfect one: without the skill, Claude also led with both calculations. The subtler change comes later, when the response gets more prescriptive.
The Detail That Rules Out Calling It an Automatic Improvement
In the first case, both responses got the math right. The variant with the skill closed by recommending a 20% budget increase and a seven-day measurement window if margin exceeded CPA. The request didn't include enough context to back that specific recommendation.
It also mislabeled margin. In the explanatory case, both variants presented the €30 remaining after the stated costs as profit, without dwelling enough on costs that might still be missing. A useful reminder: a correct formula doesn't make a business diagnosis complete.
The formatting was cleaner. The judgment still needed checking.
I'm not attributing that flaw to the skill based on a single comparison: the no-rules response also gave a generic scaling recommendation. What the test does debunk is the equation between "more direct" and "more reliable."
Real Opinions: The Debate Is More Open Than It Looks
Reddit: usefulness, activation, and an alternative to the skill format
In this r/ClaudeAI thread, the I Have ADHD text is shared and participants identify the original repository. The post copy talks about automatic activation even without requesting brevity; the code we reviewed works by explicit invocation by default. The experience reports are worth reading alongside that change, don't conflate different versions.
Phelps1576, who opened the thread, highlights the immediate relief of Claude getting to the point. They say they use it and are glad the original creator was credited. Their enthusiasm is personal experience, not a productivity measurement.
"Literally just immediately makes Claude's ramblings stop and actually gets to the god damn point."
TheSoulllllman offers a concrete note on activation. They find it useful, but checked the history after noticing Claude had drifted back to the prose that distracted them. They found the change to opt-in per session.
"So looking at the git history helped me see updates to this skill that made it default to opt-in per session."
LsDmT questions where these instructions should live. They suggest an output style or persistent rules, a useful objection if all you want is shorter responses and don't need the rest of the package.
"Wouldn't this be better as an Output Style than a Skill?"
Hacker News: how much it adds, and how long it lasts
The Hacker News thread opened on September 8, 2026 is explicitly about this repository. These comments represent distinct positions within that thread, not a representative sample of all its users.
- bethekind values it positively, though notes they get a useful result by prompting the model for a tailored explanation directly.
- tonymet reduces their alternative to two words: "Be concise." They raise the reasonable question of how much a packaged skill adds over a simple instruction.
- sleazebreeze describes the opposite problem: in their experience, Claude reverts to lengthy replies after several turns despite the instructions. Our single-response comparison doesn't test that persistence.
There's no basis here for writing that "everyone wants it on by default." The six selected testimonials come from two threads: they're useful for contrasting arguments, not for estimating how many users are satisfied. There's genuine interest, simple alternatives, and a practical question about how long the instructions hold. That conversation is more useful for making a decision than a star count turned into a quality argument.
When I'd Use It in Marketing, and What to Try First
I'd find it useful when you already understand the work and what's slowing you down is locating the next action: reviewing a reporting script, following integration steps, or picking up a technical task after several interruptions. These are possible use cases; this review's test didn't measure productivity on a real team.
For someone starting out, the requirements shift. They need to understand why they're doing each thing, not just sprint through a checklist. Asking for a proper explanation needs to be part of how they use it, and the skill itself allows for that.
Claude Code already offers a built-in style called Concise, available from version 2.1.237. According to the documentation, it leads with the result and cuts preambles, but develops explanations when asked. Select it from /config, under Output style.
| Your need | Where I'd start |
|---|---|
| You just want to cut intros and sign-offs. | Concise or a style instruction. Check whether they already fix the problem. |
| You want numbered steps, visible status, and a clear next action. | I Have ADHD brings a more explicit rule set. |
| You need to learn a concept or compare options. | Request the depth you need; check that relevant context isn't dropped. |
| You're expecting better decisions or a clinical ADHD intervention. | This test and the repository offer no evidence for that claim. |
If you work with AI agents for marketing campaigns, the value is in reducing friction without losing the context you need to make decisions. A response that saves you reading time but nudges you to change a budget without enough data is an expensive shortcut.
Verdict
I Have ADHD is an accessible way to ask for more structured, easier-to-follow responses. In this test it changed the presentation, preserved a full explanation when requested, and made clear that not everything gets shorter, and that a style instruction doesn't replace checking what the model actually recommends.
My recommendation is to try the simplest solution that covers your problem first. If Concise is enough, you already have it. If you need a more explicit system of steps and status tracking, this skill is worth testing with your usual tasks and reviewing after several conversation turns.
Getting AI to shut up sooner is good. Getting it to help you decide better is what matters.
Update of September 11, 2026: this revision corrects the description of activation and skill exceptions, replaces references unrelated to the tool, and adds primary sources, screenshots, and a documented comparison. It does not include an extended-use test or clinical outcomes.
