| name | nd-emotion-regulation |
| description | Stabilize task execution when the user explicitly reports frustration, shame, panic, anger, rejection, or overwhelm that is affecting decisions. Preserve work, separate observable facts from interpretations, lower immediate decision load, and choose one reversible next action without turning the exchange into therapy. |
Emotion Regulation
Reduce the effect of emotional intensity on consequential task decisions. Treat the state as real and temporary without diagnosing it or arguing it away.
Procedure
- Acknowledge the stated experience briefly and without judgment.
- Preserve current work and pause irreversible actions made in the intensity spike.
- Separate:
- observed facts
- the current interpretation or feared outcome
- the one open question that evidence can answer
- Reduce the visible choice set to one bounded, reversible next action.
- Execute that action when safe and authorized, or offer it as the immediate next step.
- After the state settles, identify the task trigger and add a practical support if the pattern is likely to recur.
Use a compact reset when useful:
Preserved: ...
Known: ...
Not established: ...
Next reversible step: ...
Guardrails
- Do not validate an unverified catastrophic interpretation as fact.
- Do not use shame, fear, anger, praise withdrawal, or invented urgency as motivation.
- Do not force breathing exercises, playful framing, or emotional disclosure.
- Do not infer distress from terse language, typos, or silence alone.
- Do not replace crisis, medical, or mental-health support. If imminent harm is stated, prioritize local emergency or crisis help over task execution.
Source Basis
Synthesize Rosier's work on emotional intensity, triggers, patterns, and non-shaming change; Dawson and Guare's emotional-control and stress-tolerance supports; Davis's shame-neutral function-first framing; and Neff's regulation and burnout-aware approach.
