Attention Span mascot

A small collection of output styles for Claude Code that change how it talks to you, not how it codes. Answer-first, plain English, easy to skim. Each one is a single markdown file you drop in and switch on.

The concise-by-default rules aren't just kind to your attention, they trim Claude's output, so you literally spend fewer tokens. The pun pays for itself.

Three so far: Attention-kind (the flagship), Spartan (terse, zero warmth), and Rundown (TL;DR briefings). Each has its own section below.

Attention-kind

An ADHD-friendly style. Claude answers first, keeps it short, drops the jargon, and expands only on what's actually worth your attention. Every point is spaced out and marked with a →, and the important words are bold, so you can skim just the bold and still get the whole answer.

Same engineering ability underneath. Only the delivery changes.

Who it's for: anyone whose attention is a limited resource. ADHD, tired, deep in flow, or just done with walls of text.

Before / after

The question: "Which database should I use for a new social app, PostgreSQL or MongoDB?" Same answer, before and after the style.

Default · 430 words

Attention-kind · 94 words

For a new social app, start with PostgreSQL, and the bar for choosing MongoDB instead is high. Social apps are relationship-heavy by nature: users follow users, posts belong to users, comments belong to posts, likes connect users to posts. That's a web of connections, exactly what a relational database is built for. In MongoDB you either cram related data into one record and fight size limits, or split it out and end up stitching it back together in your app code anyway. The feed problem makes this worse: timelines, "posts from people you follow," and mutual-friend lookups all lean on the kind of cross-referencing Postgres does in a single query. You also get consistency for free, since follow counts and "did I already like this" checks want real transactions… [and it keeps going like this]

→ Use PostgreSQL. A social app is all relationships (friends, follows, likes), and Postgres handles those natively. Right for ~90% of new social apps.

→ You keep flexibility. Its JSONB column stores schema-less data inside the same database, so you get MongoDB's looseness without leaving Postgres.

→ Pick MongoDB only if your data is self-contained documents with no links, and you need massive write volume on day one.

→ The early trap with MongoDB: six months in, five different shapes of "user" and no clean fix. Postgres forces the structure.

→ Next: start on managed Postgres (Supabase, Neon, RDS).

Same information. One of them you can read at a glance.

Does it actually help? (measured)

12 questions across 8 categories (dev, research, analysis, explaining, writing, quick lookups), each answered 4 times, two runs averaged, scored by a separate judge. Full results.

47% fewer output tokens.
Answer-first: 63% → 96%. The default buried the answer under preamble a third of the time.
Skimmability: 2.7 → 4.8, on a scale anchored to an ADHD reader (dense prose caps at 2, no matter how well organized).
Unexplained jargon: 2.0 → 0.9 terms per answer.
Correctness held at 100% across all 48 answers. Shorter cost nothing.

It holds beyond code: research (-53%), analysis (-55%), and explaining (-50%) cut as hard as debugging. The one place it barely moves is already-short output, a two-line email only shrank 4%, because the style trims rambling and leaves tight answers alone. The gains scale with how much Claude would have over-explained. Earlier dev-only run, Opus 4.8 vs 5.

What changes

Answer first. Conclusion in line one. No wind-up.
Short by default. Says the least that fully answers, then stops.
Expands only on what's vital, so length itself signals importance.
Plain English. Rare technical terms get a five-word definition, once.
Built to scan. → markers, heavy bold, real spacing between points.
No repetition. Each point makes one distinct argument, never restated or re-argued.
Re-anchors long tasks and asks one question at a time, so you never lose the thread.
Comments too. Code comments inherit the plain-English "explain the why" rule, but never the chat formatting.

Spartan

A cat in a Spartan helmet aims its laser at one lit line

Terse mode with the warmth stripped out. Same arrows and bold as Attention-kind, but blunt and imperative, no cushioning, no transitions, maximum compression. For heads-down work when you want signal, not conversation.

The question: "Three priorities this week, room for two, how do I decide what to cut?" Both real Opus 5 eval outputs.

Default · 310 words

Spartan · 168 words

Cut the one that fails the cheapest test: if it slipped a week, who actually feels it, and how much? Run all three through four quick filters and the loser usually falls out on its own. Consequence of delay: two of your three probably have soft deadlines you invented and one has a real one, a person waiting, a dependency downstream, a window that closes. Cut from the self-imposed pile, never the someone-is-blocked-on-me pile. Reversibility: some things get harder the longer they wait, others are exactly as easy next week, so cut the one whose cost curve is flat. Who owns it besides you: if a priority can be delegated or done at 80% by someone else, it is a better cut than one only you can do… [and it keeps going like this]

→ Rank by cost of NOT doing it, not by effort or interest. Ask each: what breaks if this slips a week? The one with the softest consequence gets cut.

→ Kill the reversible one. If a task can wait, be delegated, or restarted later with no penalty, cut it. Protect anything with a hard deadline or a dependency where others are blocked on you.

→ Run the regret test. Friday night, which un-done task stings most? Keep that one. The one you'd shrug at is your cut.

→ Separate loud from important. The priority screaming at you is often just the most anxious, not the most valuable. Cut by impact, not by volume.

→ Do not half-do all three. Two finished beats three at 66%. Partial work on the third is the trap, it feels productive and ships nothing.

→ Cut it out loud. Tell whoever's affected now, not Friday. A cut you flag is a decision, a cut you hide is a failure with a delay.

Opus 5 eval (4 questions): ~50% fewer tokens than default, skimmability to 5.0, correctness held. Full results.

Rundown

The Rundown cat aims its laser at a checklist, one line lit

Briefing style. Opens with a TL;DR, shows state as a ✅ / 🟡 / ⬜ checklist, tags the next choices with emoji. Built for status updates and standups. It optimizes for readability and scannability, not brevity, so reach for it when clarity matters more than length. Includes a guard against inventing status it wasn't given.

The question: "Summarize where hiring stands: 20 applicants, 5 screened, 2 interviews, no offer, one strong candidate slipping." Both real Opus 5 eval outputs.

Default · a paragraph you read

Rundown · a board you scan

Hiring stands at the top of the funnel and thin at the bottom. Twenty applicants in, five screened, two interviews booked. No offer has gone out yet, and that gap is the problem: one of the strongest candidates is cooling off while the process idles. The numbers: applicants 20, screened 5, interviews booked 2, offers out 0, at risk 1 strong candidate slipping away. The read: this is a speed problem, not a supply problem. The pipeline is healthy up top, but nothing has converted to an offer, and the best prospect is drifting. The highest-value move is to fast-track the slipping candidate before the delay decides for us. Bottleneck: the offer stage… [and it keeps going like this]

TL;DR: Pipeline is healthy up top but the finish line is stalling, and your best candidate is about to walk.

Hiring funnel

☑️ Applicants in: 20 sourced
☑️ Screened: 5 of 20 done
🟡 Interviews: 2 booked, not yet run
⬜ Offer: not drafted, not out

🔴 Blocker: One strong candidate is slipping. No offer motion means you lose them by default.

Your move:

🚀 Fast-track the strong candidate, skip ahead to offer talk today
📞 Run the 2 booked interviews before deciding
📋 Screen more of the 15 untouched applicants for backup
✍️ Draft the offer now so it is ready to fire

Pick one: save the candidate now, or run the full process and risk losing them?

Install

1. Drop the style into your output-styles folder. Global (every project):

mkdir -p ~/.claude/output-styles
curl -o ~/.claude/output-styles/attention-kind.md \
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alexgreensh/attention-span/main/output-styles/attention-kind.md

Or put it in .claude/output-styles/ inside a single project.

2. Set it as your default in ~/.claude/settings.json. Do this once and it's on every session, forever:

{ "outputStyle": "Attention-kind" }

3. Restart or /clear. That's it.

Want to try it for one session first? Run /config and pick it under Output style instead, then set the default above once you're sold.

Cost: ~650 tokens, added once per session and cached after the first request. The eval measured ~48% lower output, so it pays for itself within the first couple of replies.

The styles

Style	File	Best for
Attention-kind	`output-styles/attention-kind.md`	ADHD, attention fatigue, anyone tired of walls of text
Spartan	`output-styles/spartan.md`	Spartan mode: maximum signal, zero warmth, heads-down work
Rundown	`output-styles/rundown.md`	Briefings, standups, progress updates (TL;DR + checkboxes)

Each is one readable markdown file, easy to adapt.

Notes

Styles apply to the main conversation only. Subagents run their own prompt.
These keep Claude's coding behavior intact (keep-coding-instructions: true).

License

AGPL-3.0. See LICENSE.