agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/goal/SKILL.md

goal

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Design and synthesize high-leverage autonomous goal prompts and contracts for unattended execution. Use when crafting a /goal prompt, planning an overnight autonomous coding run, converting rambling specifications into a self-contained agentic mission, or setting up multi-agent autonomous loops — even if they don't explicitly say \"goal prompt\". Do NOT use when the user asks for immediate single-turn execution in the current conversation without an autonomous goal contract.

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 41 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
  1. Distinctive:

    Observable Done Condition: Every deliverable must possess a concrete completion state the autonomous session can verify itself (e.g., test …

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Action: Verify paths and tools before naming them, then weave the 7 components into natural flowing prose (150–350 words).

    line 50
  3. Distinctive:

    Action: Verify the drafted prompt against the seven invariants and output in a clean code block.

    line 61

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 41 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Autonomous Goal & Contract Synthesis

Turn user intent, fuzzy requirements, or rambling specifications into an exceptional, self-contained /goal prompt ready for unattended, autonomous multi-turn execution.

Core Principle

An autonomous goal prompt specifies the destination, quality bar, and verification loops — never micromanaged step-by-step scripts.

Core Invariants

  1. Observable Done Condition: Every deliverable must possess a concrete completion state the autonomous session can verify itself (e.g., test suite passes, CLI runs on fixtures, build outputs exist).
  2. Upfront Authority & Creative Freedom: Grant explicit permission to make design decisions, choose internal workflows, and resolve ambiguities without interrupting the user.
  3. Verified Resource Inventory: Name only 2–4 tools or paths that were verified against the live environment. Pair with an explicit discovery mandate.
  4. Mandatory Multi-Pass Verification: Mandate at least 3 distinct iteration passes matched to the target medium.
  5. Terminal Goal Line: End with a single recency-anchored sentence containing the deliverable and autonomy directive ("... is your /goal. Work completely autonomously and do not ask me for anything until you are all done.").

The Seven-Part Goal Prompt Anatomy

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. Core Desire & High-Stakes Context                     │
│ 2. Uncompromising Quality Bar & Principles               │
│ 3. Verified Resource Inventory & Discovery Mandate       │
│ 4. Explicit Decision Authority & Creative Freedom        │
│ 5. Medium-Matched Multi-Pass Verification Loop           │
│ 6. Concrete Delivery Destination                         │
│ 7. Terminal Goal Line & Autonomy Directive               │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Extract Intent & Fill Gaps

  • Action: Extract deliverable, scope, real stakes, mentioned tools, quality standards, and target destination.
  • Key Point: Synthesize sensible defaults for minor gaps. If an ambiguity is critical, resolve it upfront.
  • Why: Multi-round back-and-forth defeats the speed advantage of autonomous delegation.

Step 2: Verify Resources & Compose Anatomy

  • Action: Verify paths and tools before naming them, then weave the 7 components into natural flowing prose (150–350 words).
  • Key Point: State the outcome and constraints clearly while explicitly granting the agent freedom to navigate internal implementation steps.
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Word count is within 150–350 words
    • Named resources verified against live repository
    • Creative freedom & decision authority explicitly granted
    • Medium-specific verification passes defined (3 iterations)
    • Destination explicit (link, directory path, file artifact)
    • Concludes with terminal goal line and autonomy directive

Step 3: Mechanical Validation & Delivery

  • Action: Verify the drafted prompt against the seven invariants and output in a clean code block.
  • Key Point: Deliver the prompt ready to copy-paste with zero clutter.
  • Why: Clean delivery prevents formatting and syntax mistakes during execution.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"I listed step-by-step instructions so the agent won't get lost."Specify destination, not micromanaged steps.Micromanagement prevents the agent from adapting to unforeseen obstacles.
"I named several tools from memory without checking if they exist."Verify all resources before naming.Unverified resources cause agents to burn turns searching for phantom paths.
"The task is subjective, so verification passes aren't needed."Every deliverable requires verification criteria.Unverified tasks lead to premature completion and unspotted defects.
"I added notes and explanations after the goal line."Terminal goal line must be the final sentence.Recency bias ensures the terminal directive anchors the model's primary objective.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free