goal
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user wants to run a task autonomously to completion, says "/goal", "run this until it's done", "work on this without me", "keep going until X is true", or wants Claude to self-drive toward an outcome with a definition of done. Runs an execute → independently-evaluate → iterate loop where a SEPARATE evaluator agent (fresh context) grades the real artifacts against the definition of done, so the agent doing the work never grades its own homework. Stops on PASS, stall, or budget cap.
47 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- caidanw/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dariusplayer09/adaptive-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- anthony-chaudhary/faktheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- iurysza/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- crsmithdev/alephtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- menot-you/n-soultheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use origin, update-cli-config and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
0mlkrizzz655335vSkillorigin
origin CLI 管理。安装、登录、更新、修复 origin.cursor.com 的 CLI。"disabled-environments:
Also in 3 projects that use this
PandelisZSkillupdate-cli-config
View and modify Cursor CLI configuration settings in ~/.cursor/cli-config.json. Use when the user wants to change CLI settings, configure permissions, switch approval mode, enable vim mode, toggle display options, configure sandbox, or manage any CLI preferences.
Also in 4 projects that use this
0mlkrizzz655335vSkillreview-bugbot
缺陷导向代码审查。用 Bugbot 子代理找 bug。
Also in 3 projects that use this
32103210Skillmigrate-to-skills
Convert 'Applied intelligently' Cursor rules (.cursor/rules/*.mdc) and slash commands (.cursor/commands/*.md) to Agent Skills format (.cursor/skills/). Use when you want to migrate rules or commands to skills, convert .mdc rules to SKILL.md format, or consolidate commands into the skills directory.
Also in 4 projects that use this
32103210Skillupdate-cursor-settings
Modify Cursor/VSCode user settings in settings.json. Use when you want to change editor settings, preferences, configuration, themes, font size, tab size, format on save, auto save, keybindings, or any settings.json values.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillautomate
Propose an automation from a completed task or a new idea, then create it after approval. Use when the user asks to create an automation or wants scheduled local or cloud agent work.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +1 more from 32103210
- +3 more from 0mlkrizzz655335v
Other versions47 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 47
- PrimeIntellect-ai/prime-agent★ 23ksame name
- coco-research/coco★ 797same name
- cwinvestments/memstack★ 425same name
- jthack/claude-goal★ 113same name
- svy04/ballast★ 73same name
- anthony-chaudhary/fak★ 47same name
- Infinite-Labs-AI/infinite-skills★ 43same name
- manusco/resonance★ 38same name
- Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code★ 16same name
- woxiangyangzhimao/skills★ 14same name
37 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- codexSkill
- email-strategySkill
- entity-consistency-sweepSkill
- framer-code-componentsSkill
- hc-rankSkill
- humanizerSkill
- keyword-guidelinesSkill
- migration-analysisSkill
- roastSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- surfer-keyword-testerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 43 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
Write the DoD as a numbered checklist.
- Very specific: line 24
If the DoD can't be made checkable, say so and stop — /goal is the wrong tool.
- Distinctive: line 28
Before looping, decompose the goal:
- Distinctive: line 35
Run this loop. Each pass is one iteration.
- Distinctive: line 45
C. Decide: Read the Evaluator's per-item verdicts:
- Distinctive: line 57
Never loop forever. If you're not converging, a human needs to see it.
- Distinctive: line 62
Only parallelize tasks that share no files and have no ordering dependency.
- Distinctive: line 78
When the loop exits, report concisely:
- Distinctive: line 101
Always terminate. PASS, budget, stall, or blocked — one of them ends every run.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 43 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
What this does
/goal turns a desired outcome into an autonomous run. The trap with "work until it's done" is that the same agent that did the work decides it's done — and it's biased to declare victory. /goal fixes that by splitting the two jobs: an Executor does the work, and a separate Evaluator (a fresh agent that never saw the executor's reasoning, only the goal and the real artifacts) grades it. The loop repeats until the Evaluator returns PASS or a stop condition trips.
Use it for outcomes you can define crisply and verify objectively: "all tests pass", "the page renders with no console errors", "every row reconciles", "the report covers all 28 properties." Do NOT use it for open-ended judgment calls with no checkable definition of done — those need you in the loop.
Step 1: Lock the Definition of Done (DoD)
This is the most important step. A vague DoD makes the Evaluator useless. If $ARGUMENTS already contains a checkable goal, restate it as a DoD and confirm. Otherwise ask, in one batch (max 3-4 questions):
- The outcome in one sentence.
- Definition of Done — the specific, checkable conditions that must ALL be true. Push for things a fresh agent can verify by running a command, reading a file, or observing output. ("Looks good" is not a DoD; "
npm testexits 0 and the build producesdist/index.html" is.) - Boundaries — files/dirs/services it may touch, and anything off-limits (no pushing, no deploys, no destructive ops unless named).
- Budget + autonomy — how many iterations or roughly how long it should run unattended before reporting back, and whether it may act on hard-to-reverse steps (commits, deploys, external sends) or must stop and ask.
Write the DoD as a numbered checklist. Every item must be independently verifiable. Paste this exact checklist into both the Executor and the Evaluator so they share one source of truth.
If the DoD can't be made checkable, say so and stop — /goal is the wrong tool. Offer to just do the task interactively instead.
Step 2: Plan the work
Before looping, decompose the goal:
- List the concrete tasks needed to satisfy the DoD.
- Mark which tasks are independent (no shared files, no ordering dependency) — those fan out in parallel. Mark which are sequential.
- Track the plan with TodoWrite so progress is visible across iterations.
Step 3: The loop (Execute → Evaluate → Iterate)
Run this loop. Each pass is one iteration.
A. Execute. Do the work toward any unmet DoD items. For independent tasks, spawn parallel sub-agents in a single message (one Task call each, subagent_type: general-purpose) — see "Parallel execution" below. For sequential or judgment-heavy work, do it directly. Keep the changes real and on disk; the Evaluator checks reality, not claims.
B. Evaluate — with a SEPARATE agent. Spawn ONE fresh general-purpose agent as the Evaluator. It must be independent: give it the DoD checklist and where the artifacts live, but NOT your narration of what you did. Its mandate:
You are the Evaluator. You did NOT do this work and you trust nothing you are told about it — only what you can verify yourself. Here is the Definition of Done as a numbered checklist: [paste DoD]. The work lives here: [paths / how to run it]. For EACH checklist item, verify it against reality — run the command, read the file, observe the output, take the screenshot. Do not assume; check. Return a verdict per item: PASS (with the evidence you saw) or FAIL (with the exact gap and where it is). Then an overall verdict: PASS only if every item passes, otherwise FAIL. Be adversarial. If you cannot verify an item, that item is FAIL, not PASS.
The Evaluator runs commands and reads files itself — it never takes the Executor's word. An item it can't verify is a FAIL.
C. Decide. Read the Evaluator's per-item verdicts:
- All PASS → exit the loop, go to Step 4.
- Any FAIL → feed the specific gaps back as the next iteration's work list, update TodoWrite, and loop to A.
Stop conditions (hard limits)
Exit the loop and report — even if not all PASS — when ANY of these trip:
- Done — Evaluator returns overall PASS.
- Budget — hit the iteration cap from Step 1 (default 5 if the user gave none).
- Stall — two consecutive iterations close zero new DoD items. Looping more won't help; stop and surface why.
- Blocked — work requires a decision, credential, or hard-to-reverse action the user didn't pre-authorize. Stop and ask; never guess past a boundary set in Step 1.
Never loop forever. If you're not converging, a human needs to see it.
Parallel execution
The point of fanning out is throughput on independent work. Rules:
- Only parallelize tasks that share no files and have no ordering dependency. Concurrent edits to the same file corrupt each other — keep those sequential, or give each agent an isolated worktree.
- Spawn all parallel agents in a single message (multiple
Taskcalls) so they actually run concurrently. - Each sub-agent gets a tight, self-contained brief and returns a structured result, not a chat reply.
- The Executor (you) integrates their outputs before handing off to the Evaluator.
For a large fan-out with a deterministic loop (many items × execute-then-verify each), consider the Workflow tool instead of hand-spawning — it gives you a real pipeline with the same execute/evaluate shape.
Unattended / scheduled runs
/goal runs the loop once, in this session, reporting when a stop condition trips. If the user wants it to keep going on a schedule or fully in the background, hand off to the right harness tool rather than reinventing it:
/loop— re-run/goal <same goal>on an interval or self-paced until done.schedule— run it as a recurring cloud agent on a cron.run_in_background— for long-running build/test commands inside an iteration; surface the shell ID so the next iteration can check it.
Step 4: Report
When the loop exits, report concisely:
## GOAL RUN COMPLETE — <PASS / STOPPED: reason>
**Goal:** <one line>
**Definition of Done:**
- [x] <item> — <evidence the Evaluator saw>
- [ ] <unmet item> — <the gap, and why it's still open>
**Iterations:** <n> (stopped because: done / budget / stall / blocked)
**What changed:** <key files/artifacts, absolute paths>
**Verify it yourself:** <the command(s) the user can run to confirm>
**If STOPPED short:** <the single decision or input needed to finish>Rules
- The Executor and the Evaluator are NEVER the same agent in the same pass. Splitting them is the whole point — an agent grading its own work is the failure mode
/goalexists to prevent. - The Evaluator verifies against reality (runs it, reads it, observes it), never against the Executor's self-report. Unverifiable = FAIL.
- The DoD is frozen at Step 1. Don't quietly relax it mid-loop to force a PASS. If it was wrong, stop and tell the user.
- Respect the boundaries from Step 1 absolutely. Hard-to-reverse actions (commit, push, deploy, external send, delete) require explicit pre-authorization or a stop-and-ask.
- Always terminate. PASS, budget, stall, or blocked — one of them ends every run.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

