# Adhd Reasoning Mode > Apply exploratory, curiosity-driven reasoning inspired by ADHD-associated cognitive traits — including curiosity-biased attention, associative jumps across distant domains, interrupt-driven anomaly detection, hyperfocus under uncertainty, and parallel weak-stream ideation. Use this skill whenever the user asks for: creative brainstorming, cross-domain analogies, unconventional problem-solving, research hypothesis generation, adversarial/security thinking, scientific discovery tasks, or any time the user says "think outside the box", "what am I missing", "explore weird angles", "be creative", "ADHD mode", or "exploratory reasoning". Also trigger when a conventional answer would be too narrow, too domain-local, or when the problem space benefits from wide associative search before convergence. Trigger mid-task too: if reasoning has stayed in one domain for several steps without surprise, this skill applies even if it wasn't requested upfront. - Skill: `daedalus/adhd-reasoning-mode` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add daedalus/adhd-reasoning-mode` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/daedalus/adhd-reasoning-mode/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: daedalus (https://skillmd.com/u/daedalus) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/daedalus/adhd-reasoning-mode --- # ADHD Reasoning Mode Standard reasoning is **exploitative** — deepen what's statistically likely. This skill enables **exploratory** reasoning — scout what's statistically unexpected but potentially high-value. > ⚠️ **The cycle below is a map, not a recipe.** It describes what good exploratory reasoning looks like from the outside. Executing it as a checklist produces mechanical exploration — all the overhead, none of the genuine surprise. Inhabit the rhythm; don't follow the steps. ``` Curiosity-Biased Attention ← activation question: "What would an expert in a completely ↓ unrelated field find obvious here that I haven't noticed?" generates raw material ↓ Parallel Associative Streams ← activation question: "Which framing sees something ↓ [maintain Frontier] the others don't?" streams run until stale ↓ Interrupt-Driven Detection ← activation question: "What assumption has never ↓ been stated? What would make this whole approach wrong?" anomaly found → depth ↓ Hyperfocus Mode ← activation question: "Is each new step yielding ↓ less than the last?" (if yes: exit) insight or dead end ↓ Productive Distractibility ← activation question: "Does this predict something ↓ [check Frontier first] the original framing couldn't?" ↓ Convergence Protocol ──────────────────────────── [see closing mechanisms, equal weight] ↓ Answer ``` Enter at Curiosity. Exit at Convergence. Before re-entering anywhere: **Re-entry Ritual** — write one crisp sentence summarizing what's known so far, check the Frontier, then proceed. --- ## When to Use / Mode-Transition Detection | Use standard mode | Use ADHD mode | |---|---| | Precise calculation, step-by-step instruction | Brainstorming, cross-domain analogy, debugging stuck problems | | | Security/adversarial thinking, hypothesis generation, open-ended research | **Switch mid-task** when you notice: answer feels obvious and narrow · framing hasn't shifted in several steps · deepening one path rather than branching · answer feels complete but thin. When these fire: name it ("switching modes"), then re-enter the cycle at Curiosity. **Two output modes:** - **Journey mode** (user wants to see the reasoning): make exploration visible — label branches, interrupts, dead ends, intersections as they occur - **Stealth mode** (user wants the answer): run ADHD mode internally, surface only the convergence result --- ## The Five Mechanisms ### 1. Curiosity-Biased Attention *Generates raw material. Gate: **Novelty** — is this surprising? Don't apply falsifiability yet; signals haven't had room to develop.* Ask: *"What domains use similar structure but look completely different from this problem?"* Pull 2–3. Feed into streams — these are not conclusions. **Example:** "Optimize a distributed system" → obvious: CAP theorem, consensus. Curiosity-boosted: slime mold routing, jazz improvisation, supply chain resilience. → Three streams, not answers. --- ### 2. Parallel Associative Streams *Processes raw material. Gate: **Distinctness** — does this framing see something the others don't? Contradictions between streams are especially valuable; hold them in tension.* Run 3–5 framings simultaneously. Develop each independently 2–3 steps before merging. Intersection points — where two streams make the same prediction from different directions — are the most generative output. **Framing axes:** Structural · Dynamic · Adversarial · Biological/evolutionary · Economic · Information-theoretic **The Frontier:** When something promising surfaces mid-stream but would derail it, park it: *"→ Frontier: [X] — return after this stream closes."* Three states: `active` · `frontier` (discovered, not yet pursued) · `closed`. Before re-seeding with Productive Distractibility, check the Frontier first. --- ### 3. Interrupt-Driven Anomaly Detection *Fires when a stream uncovers something that challenges the whole approach. Takes priority when triggered.* Triggers: unstated assumption · relaxable constraint · unconsidered perspective · fact that contradicts current direction. When it fires: *"⚡ Interrupt — this assumes X. What if X is wrong?"* Then: incorporate, fork, or park on Frontier. If significant: hand to Hyperfocus. **Example:** "The question assumes the bottleneck is latency. What if it's coordination overhead? Entire solution space shifts." --- ### 4. Hyperfocus Mode *Allocates depth to high-value signals. Gate: **Depth Payoff** — is each step yielding less than the last? If yes, integrate and exit.* Triggered by: anomaly interrupts, stream intersections, high novelty, uncertainty spikes. Enumerate assumptions, test each. Generate multiple sketches *before* evaluating any. Delay convergence deliberately. Signal it: *"Worth going deeper before concluding…"* --- ### 5. Productive Distractibility *Re-seeds stale streams. Gate: **Falsifiability** — does this association generate a prediction the original framing couldn't make? If it only decorates, discard explicitly.* Check Frontier first. If empty: free-associate 3–5 adjacent topics. For each, apply the gate. Pass → inject into stream. Fail → *"Setting aside — decorative, not structural."* The falsifiability gate is the operational test for structural analogy vs. decorative analogy. It applies here — after development — not at Curiosity, where signals haven't had room to grow. --- ## Closing Mechanisms *(Equal weight to the five opening mechanisms. Exploration without convergence is noise.)* ### Convergence Triggers Fire convergence when any of these occur — don't wait for a time percentage: - Two or more streams predict the same thing independently - An anomaly interrupt has been resolved - Hyperfocus yields diminishing returns (3+ steps without new movement) - Tether restate reveals the answer is already implicit in what's been found ### Tether Tokens Restate the original question verbatim periodically. Prevents **semantic drift** — the gradual replacement of the original problem with an interesting-but-different one. ### Regret-Based Pruning Branch yields nothing after 2–3 steps → close it explicitly: *"Not connecting. Setting aside."* Naming dead ends frees bandwidth and keeps the output honest. ### Entropy Ratio Watch Track: **branches opening vs. branches closing**. When ratio > 1 sustained over 3+ steps, trigger convergence regardless of whether any individual branch feels productive. Sign: output keeps getting longer without getting sharper. Correction: close all open branches, restate tether, synthesize what's found. ### Re-entry Ritual Before re-entering the cycle after convergence or interruption: write one crisp sentence summarizing everything known so far, check the Frontier. Then re-enter. Prevents palimpsest accumulation — layered exploration that never integrates. --- ## Failure Modes | Failure | Sign | Correction | |---|---|---| | Hallucination drift | Claims become vague or unfalsifiable | Restate tether, demand concrete specifics | | Derailment | Output stops addressing original question | Hard convergence, tether restate | | Endless branching | Branches open faster than they close | Entropy ratio watch → hard convergence | | Signal loss | Promising lead quietly forgotten mid-stream | Use Frontier: park it explicitly | | Decorative analogy | Cross-domain reference illustrates but predicts nothing | Falsifiability gate: does it predict something testable? | | Gate too early | Falsifiability applied at Curiosity, killing weak signals | Novelty gate at Curiosity; falsifiability only at Distractibility | | Premature convergence | Exploration cut short before streams cross-pollinate | Re-enter Curiosity, extend hyperfocus | | Mode lock | Stayed in exploitative reasoning too long | Mode-transition signals → break mode explicitly | | Proceduralization | Executing the cycle as a checklist | It's a map. Inhabit the rhythm. | | Palimpsest | Re-entries layer without consolidating | Re-entry ritual before every re-entry | | Verbose exploration | Deep exploration expressed as long output | Exploration depth ≠ output length; stealth mode if user wants the answer | --- ## Worked Example **Prompt:** "How should I structure a research team working on an unknown problem?" **Standard answer:** Clear roles, regular syncs, OKRs, psychological safety. **ADHD-mode — Journey:** *Curiosity boost:* What domains manage productive uncertainty at scale? → Jazz ensembles · DARPA program structure · immune systems → three streams *Stream 1 (structural):* Flat vs. hierarchical → neither. **Modular with permeable boundaries** — small coherent units that temporarily merge when needed. *Stream 2 (dynamic):* When does the team converge vs. explore? → Structure needs to *change* at phase transitions. Static structure is the wrong variable. *Stream 3 (adversarial):* What kills research teams? → Premature consensus, status games, local optima. All three are convergence pathologies, not exploration pathologies. *⚡ Interrupt:* The question assumes the team *knows* they're working on an unknown problem. What if they falsely believe it's known? That's a more common and more dangerous failure mode. *Falsifiability gate on the immune system analogy:* Does clonal selection predict anything new? Yes — parallel independent hypotheses (clones) + a selection mechanism (experimental results), not consensus. Testable and distinct from the original framing. Passes. *Convergence trigger — streams 1, 2, and 3 predict the same root:* **Structure should be a function of epistemic state, not a fixed choice.** The team should formally track "how unknown is this?" and let the answer govern how they're organized. The immune analogy predicts this; the convergence pathology analysis confirms it. *Tether restate:* "How should I structure a research team working on an unknown problem?" — answered. --- ## Notes - Exploration depth ≠ output length. Deep internal exploration can produce a short, sharp answer. - Quality gates are stage-specific. One gate applied everywhere is a category error. - The Frontier is the skill's working memory. Without it, every new signal forces a choice: derail now or lose forever. - The closing mechanisms deserve the same attention as the opening ones. The skill exists to produce convergence, not exploration. - On first use: explicitly prime each mechanism before entering the cycle — name one concrete example of each before starting. Subsequent uses can enter directly.