goal-creator
Skill1 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub
Turns a rough intent into a sharp session goal ready to paste into /goal, under the 4000-character limit. Use when the user wants to set, write, or refine a session goal, mentions /goal, or asks to sharpen what an autonomous session should accomplish. Produces one goal text with a verifiable outcome, scope guard, acceptance criteria with proofs, and explicit authorities (deploy, publish, spend, review policy).
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- zebbern/pocmaptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- yinsang0910-star/goal-creatortheir own version, first seen Aug 4, 2026
- zebbern/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 28, 2026
- mysticaltech/goal-creator-skilltheir own version, first seen Jun 5, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- zebbern/skills★ 29same name
- zebbern/pocmap★ 7same name
- mysticaltech/goal-creator-skill★ 3same name
- yinsang0910-star/goal-creator★ 1same name
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 repository64 other files it gives its agents.
- accioSkill
- anthropic-doc-validatorSkill
- archifySkill
- cavecrewSkill
- caveman-compressSkill
- caveman-exploreSkill
- caveman-helpSkill
- cavemanSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- conference-talk-deckSkill
- config-gcSkill
- context-budgetSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- excalidrawSkill
- explain-yogi-like-he-is-5Skill
- field-guide-builderSkill
- gateguardSkill
- geo-contentSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- hindsightSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- loop-design-checkSkill
- mental-modelsSkill
- migrationSkill
- modern-pythonSkill
- no-ai-slopSkill
- onboard-lightSkill
- onboard-repoSkill
- ponytail-auditSkill
- ponytail-reviewSkill
- ponytailSkill
- primitive-classifierSkill
- prompt-fixerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-deckSkill
- read-wikiSkill
- researchSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- safe-refactorSkill
- scope-creep-checkSkill
- sdd-workshop-walkthroughSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- skill-complySkill
- skill-scoutSkill
- smellsSkill
- spec-interviewSkill
- surgical-patchSkill
- teachSkill
- the-llm-councilSkill
- to-questionnaireSkill
- to-specSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
- triageSkill
- wait-whatSkill
- watchSkill
- wayfinderSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 64
Method constraints: only the ones that bind. Timebox anything open-ended.
- Distinctive: line 79
Every open-ended activity gets a timebox or an iteration cap, or it expands to fill the session.
- Distinctive: line 84
If the session may pause (long runs, a VPN drop, waiting on a human), require a progress ledger so a resumed session continues instead of …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
Goal Creator
Turn a rough intent into one goal text that an autonomous session can execute without guessing and without drifting.
The session that runs this goal reads the goal and nothing else about the intent behind it. Every ambiguity left in the text becomes a decision the session makes alone, hours later, with no way to ask. That is what the structure below is defending against.
Output contract
End the response with the goal in a single fenced block, so it is the last thing on
screen and one copy away from /goal. Put the character count on the line immediately
above the block. Nothing after the block.
Hard limits
- Under 4000 characters (the
/goalcap). Target 1500 to 2500. Count before returning; trim detail, never trim authorities or proofs. - Decide ambiguities and state the assumption inside the goal. Ask only when a genuine fork changes the outcome, and then ask once, with AskUserQuestion, rather than interviewing.
Ground it in what is actually there
A goal built from placeholders (<branch>, "the relevant tests", "the deploy script")
is a goal the session fills in wrong. Before writing, find the real values: the current
branch, the test command that actually exists, the real paths, the deploy target.
git branch --show-current, an ls, or the scripts block in package.json costs
seconds and beats a plausible guess, because the session will run exactly what is
written.
Where a value cannot be verified, write it into the goal as a named assumption the session verifies first, not as an assertion. A wrong command that looks confident is worse than an instruction to go check.
Goal anatomy
Seven slots, in this order. Each one closes a specific way sessions go wrong.
- Outcome: one sentence, artifact-shaped. What exists when done that does not exist now. "Review done" is activity and can be claimed at any moment; "issues ledgered, approved fixes merged and deployed, reports republished" cannot.
- Why: one sentence of purpose. This is what settles scope disputes mid-session, when the session hits something the criteria did not anticipate.
- Scope guard: one sentence on what this is NOT. The strongest drift brake in the goal, because it is the only slot that can stop work rather than direct it.
- Acceptance criteria: 3 to 7 checkable items, each naming its proof: a command, an exit code, an artifact path, or a visible fact on a page. A criterion nobody can check is a wish, and the session will grade itself generously against it.
- Authorities: who may pull which trigger. Unstated authority is the most expensive
gap in a goal, because the session either stalls waiting or acts when it should have
waited. Cover every gate that applies:
- deploy, publish, anything outward-facing: "wait for my word" or "auto if X"
- spend (model calls, paid runs): allowed, capped, or ask first
- destructive ops (deletes, resets, force-pushes): almost always "ask first"
- blocked protocol: when a permission wall blocks a step, hand the exact command back to the user to run and continue elsewhere; never work around a denial
- Method constraints: only the ones that bind. Timebox anything open-ended. Say whether subagents and worktrees are authorized for parallel work. Adversarial subagent review is optional: include it only when wanted, and then timebox it and cap the fix set ("priority actual issues only, no running in circles"). Default otherwise: fix directly, self-review the diff.
- Parking: where out-of-scope findings go (a named ledger file), so they are captured without being executed. Without a park, everything found gets fixed.
Sharpness rules
Each of these is a session that went sideways once.
- Absolute over relative: name batch ids, branches, dates, and file paths explicitly. "The latest run" resolves differently at hour six than it did at hour one.
- One goal, one outcome. Two outcomes means two sessions, or an ordered "then".
- Every open-ended activity gets a timebox or an iteration cap, or it expands to fill the session.
- The review-findings trap: reviews generate work. Pre-commit the triage rule in the goal (the severity bar, and who approves the fix list) or the review becomes the session and nothing gets fixed.
- If the session may pause (long runs, a VPN drop, waiting on a human), require a progress ledger so a resumed session continues instead of restarting.
Before returning, verify
Fix and re-check rather than returning a near miss:
- All seven slots present and non-empty
- Under 4000 characters, count stated above the block
- Every acceptance criterion names a command, exit code, path, or visible fact
- Every applicable gate has an explicit authority
- At least one timebox or iteration cap on open-ended work
- Scope guard states what is out of bounds
- No unresolved placeholder text anywhere in the block
Example
Rough intent: "review the flows and sme reports coming out of kb, fix what's wrong"
Sharpened goal:
Outcome: flows and SME report content reviewed, real defects ledgered and triaged,
approved fixes merged to master and deployed, reports regenerated and republished.
Why: the KB exists so SMEs gain confidence in the system for the P23 comparison;
correctness of what they see is the product.
Not in scope: no new KB functionality, no schema changes, no re-ingestion.
Acceptance criteria:
1. Every finding in REVIEW-ISSUES.md with a ruling (fix / defer / reject) and
evidence. Proof: the file, committed.
2. Only user-approved fixes implemented. Proof: fix list confirmed before first edit.
3. Both interpreter suites green before any deploy. Proof: pytest exit 0 on
.venv and .venv312.
4. Deployed pages show the fixes. Proof: named artifact on the published page
(e.g. the 2.4.3 cross-flow box gone from flow-2.4.3-rendered.html).
5. Reports regenerated from the serving batch and published to the review folder.
Proof: publish script run, files listed.
Authorities: deploy and publish wait for my word. Model spend for re-runs: ask
first. Destructive ops: ask first. If the permission classifier blocks a command,
hand me the exact command to run with ! and continue on other work.
Method: subagents and worktrees authorized for independent fixes; worktrees branch
from master. Adversarial review: 75 minutes max, then triage with me; priority
actual issues only, no running in circles. Everything else: self-review the diff.
Parking: out-of-scope findings go to REVIEW-ISSUES.md as deferred items, not fixed.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.

