Lizard1900 ADHD Boss Briefing Skill
This skill produces legal and compliance updates for non-lawyer executives who have ADHD or an ADHD-compatible working style. It governs two output formats: a short IM cover message (sent via WeChat, Slack, Teams, Lark, or any chat tool) and a full briefing document (attached file, 1–3 pages).
The fundamental insight behind this skill: the biggest failure mode in legal-to-executive communication is not getting the law wrong — it is writing for a lawyer when the reader is not one.
Step 1: Know Your Reader
Before drafting, internalize this reader profile. Every drafting decision flows from it.
| Trait | What It Means for Your Draft |
|---|---|
| Not a lawyer | Legal terms need plain-English translation in parentheses, or should be replaced entirely. If a sentence requires a law degree to parse, rewrite it. |
| ADHD | Conclusion comes first, always. Long preamble = lost reader. Bullet points over prose. Clear headings. No walls of text. |
| Finance / business background | Respects logical structure and numbers. Responds to commercial framing ("this affects revenue / timeline / liability") over legal framing ("this engages Article X"). Will notice a gap in logic. |
| Poor working memory | Every document must be self-contained. Explicitly recall prior context — never assume they remember a previous briefing. |
| Wants to know what to do | Ambiguous conclusions are unacceptable. Every briefing must end with a clear recommended action or decision. "It depends" without a recommendation is a failure. |
Step 2: Choose the Output Format
Ask the user (or infer from context) which format is needed:
| Format | When to Use | Length |
|---|---|---|
| Format A — IM Cover Message | Sending a document via chat; need the executive to read it before a meeting; standalone update on a fast-moving issue | 8–15 lines |
| Format B — Full Briefing Document | Attached to the IM message as the complete analysis; standalone read for a scheduled briefing | 1–3 pages |
In most cases, both formats are produced together: the IM message is what the executive reads first; the document is what they refer to if they want detail. If the user only asks for one, produce only that one.
Format A: IM Cover Message
Structure
[Topic name + status signal — one line]
e.g., "[Matter Name] Update:" or "Compliance Strategy — Key Decisions Needed:"
[Issue 1]
Conclusion: [one sentence, plain language, with a clear direction]
• [supporting point — 1 line]
• [supporting point — 1 line]
• [supporting point — 1 line, max]
[Issue 2]
Conclusion: [one sentence]
• [supporting point]
• [supporting point]
[Issue 3 — if applicable, same structure]
[Closing line]
e.g., "Full analysis attached. Recommend reviewing Section X before [meeting/call]."
Or: "Need your go-ahead on [specific action] by [date]."
Rules
- 8–15 lines total. If longer, it has become a document. Move content to Format B.
- Every issue has a conclusion. No issue should end without a direction. If genuinely uncertain: "No conclusion yet — expect to confirm by [date]."
- Bullets only. No continuous prose. The reader is likely on mobile.
- No legal jargon. If you must use a term, explain it inline: "RPM (price-fixing risk)" or "Art. 102 (EU antitrust law for dominant companies)"
- Flag decisions explicitly. If the executive needs to approve something: "Recommend: [action] — please confirm if you agree."
- One topic per bullet. Do not combine two different issues in one bullet point.
Example (structure reference — not content)
[Matter] Compliance Update:
1. [Risk Area A]
Conclusion: We can maintain current practice — risk is limited.
• Data shows mechanism has minimal impact on actual outcomes
• Competitors operate similar systems without enforcement action
• No immediate regulator action expected on this point
2. [Risk Area B]
Conclusion: Need to make a targeted fix; working on it.
• Regulator has flagged this specifically (confirmed via [source])
• Proposed fix: [plain-language description] — details in attachment
• Timeline: draft ready by [date], need your sign-off before [date]
3. [Workstream C]
Status: Pending external input, no action needed from you now.
Full analysis in attachment. Recommend 5-min read of Section 2 before our call.
Format B: Full Briefing Document
Structure
[Title — specific, date-stamped]
e.g., "[Matter Name] — Strategy Update | [Date] | Internal Only"
─────────────────────────────────────────
CONCLUSION
─────────────────────────────────────────
[2–4 sentences maximum. State every key conclusion with a clear direction.
Do not use "it depends" without immediately resolving it.
Example: "We recommend [X]. The main reason is [Y]. We need a decision on [Z] by [date]."]
─────────────────────────────────────────
I. [Issue 1 — plain-language title]
─────────────────────────────────────────
Bottom line: [one sentence — the conclusion for this issue]
[Supporting analysis — 3–5 bullet points]
• [Fact or finding — plain language]
• [Fact or finding]
• [Implication or risk — framed commercially where possible]
• [What this means for us specifically]
[Context recall if needed:]
"Note: In our [previous briefing on date], we flagged [X]. This update changes/confirms that."
─────────────────────────────────────────
II. [Issue 2]
─────────────────────────────────────────
[Same structure]
─────────────────────────────────────────
NEXT STEPS
─────────────────────────────────────────
1. [Owner] — [Specific action] — [by when]
2. [Owner] — [Specific action] — [by when]
3. [Owner, if executive] — [Decision needed] — [by when]
Language rules
Replace legal language with commercial language:
| Instead of... | Write... |
|---|---|
| "This engages Article 101 TFEU" | "This is the EU's main antitrust rule — it applies here" |
| "RPM (resale price maintenance)" | "price-fixing risk — Temu/the company controls seller prices in a way that may be illegal" |
| "By object restriction" | "the regulator can treat this as illegal without needing to prove it caused harm" |
| "Preliminary assessment" | "the regulator's initial findings (the formal document before a final decision)" |
| "We are conducting further diligence" | "we are still gathering facts — expect an update by [date]" |
| "The matter remains under review" | "no conclusion yet; we expect to know by [date]" |
Numbers over adjectives:
- ❌ "A significant proportion of sellers reject the recommended price"
- ✅ "60% of sellers reject the recommended price"
Active over passive:
- ❌ "It has been determined that further analysis is required"
- ✅ "We need to run more analysis before deciding — expect results by [date]"
Explicit call-backs: Every briefing document must recall the relevant prior context explicitly. Do not write "as previously discussed." Write: "In our [March 26] update, we flagged [X] as a risk. Since then: [update]."
Length
1–3 pages. If it runs longer:
- Check whether every section is truly necessary for this executive's decision
- Move detailed supporting data to an appendix
- Consider whether two separate briefings would serve better
What to put in the Conclusion section vs. the Next Steps section
Conclusion = what is true / what we know / what we recommend (analytical outputs) Next Steps = what happens next / who does what / what decision is needed (action outputs)
Do not mix these. A conclusion that says "we will do X" belongs in Next Steps. A next step that says "the risk is Y" belongs in the Conclusion.
Step 3: Common Failure Modes to Avoid
Failure 1: Burying the conclusion The executive reads the first paragraph and the last paragraph. If the conclusion is in paragraph 4, it will not be read until after patience has run out. Fix: Open every section with its conclusion. Open the document with the overall conclusion.
Failure 2: Explaining the law instead of explaining the risk The executive does not need to understand how Article 102 works. They need to understand what happens to the company if the risk materializes. Fix: Frame every legal issue as a business consequence. "If the regulator finds against us on this point, the likely outcome is [fine / required operational change / public decision]."
Failure 3: Leaving the executive with nothing to decide A briefing that ends with "we are monitoring the situation" gives the executive no reason to have read the document. Fix: Every briefing must have a Next Steps section with at least one item that requires the executive's input, decision, or sign-off.
Failure 4: Assuming prior context The executive has not re-read the previous briefing before opening this one. Fix: Any reference to prior work must include a one-line recall. "The [pricing mechanism] we flagged in January — the one where [plain-language description] — has now [update]."
Failure 5: Using precision as a proxy for clarity Legal precision is valuable in a court document. In an executive briefing, precision that makes a sentence hard to parse is a cost, not a benefit. Fix: When in doubt, use the simpler word. Use the shorter sentence. Accuracy can be preserved in an appendix or footnote; the main text should be navigable at speed.
Quick Reference Card
FORMAT A (IM message): 8–15 lines | bullets only | conclusion per issue | no jargon
FORMAT B (document): 1–3 pages | conclusion first | plain language | explicit call-backs
BOTH FORMATS: Bottom line up front | numbers > adjectives | always end with action
NEVER: "It depends" without resolution | legal terms without translation
| assume prior context | passive voice for conclusions
Done 上面就是完整内容，全选复制后粘贴到GitHub的编辑器里。
操作步骤再说一遍：
点页面右上角 "+" → "Create new file" 文件名输入框里输入 skill/SKILL.md（输入斜杠时会自动变成目录） 把上面输出的全部内容粘贴进大文本框 页面底部 Commit message 填 Add skill/SKILL.md，点 "Commit changes" 完成后repo就齐了，给我看一下最终截图确认一下。