--- name: goal-crafter description: > Craft verifiable, tight goal prompts for AI coding agents (Claude Code /goal, Codex Automations, Pi), either from a standalone task interview or from an already-approved to-goal handoff. Use when the user says "给我一个 goal 提示词", "帮我写个 goal", "设置一个自动化任务", "我想让 agent 自动做 X", or asks to turn a task into a self-running loop. Ensures every goal has a checkable completion criterion so the agent knows when it's done. --- # Goal Crafter Turn a vague task into a **verifiable goal** that an AI agent can run unattended. **Leading principle**: A goal without a checkable completion criterion is just a wish. The agent must be able to answer "Am I done?" without asking a human. ## Invocation modes Choose the mode before following the process: - **Standalone mode**: the user brings a vague task or directly asks for a goal. Run Phase 1 and clarify the task one question at a time. - **Compiled-handoff mode**: approved planning evidence already supplies the answers. **Do not interview the user again.** Apply only this skill's verifiability rules and target-harness formatting. The evidence may come from a conversation, spec, issue, document, or another skill. In compiled-handoff mode, if a required product decision or completion condition is genuinely absent from the sources, report that the source is not agent-ready and name the missing evidence. Do not reopen the planning interview from inside goal compilation. ## Process ### Phase 1 — Clarify the task Run this phase only in standalone mode. In compiled-handoff mode, extract the five answers from the upstream evidence without asking questions. Ask the user, **one question at a time**, in this shape (standalone interview only — keep compiled-handoff mode emoji-free): ``` ❓ **QN** - **** 💡 ``` Walk these five in order: 1. **What exactly should the agent do?** Get the task in one sentence. If it's vague ("优化代码", "改进 UI"), push for specifics. 2. **Where does it run?** Which project / repo / workspace? Is there a specific branch or file area? 3. **What does DONE look like?** This is the most important question. Push for **observable, machine-checkable** conditions: | ❌ Vague (bad) | ✅ Verifiable (good) | |---|---| | "代码质量提高" | "`tsc --noEmit` 0 errors + `eslint` 0 warnings" | | "UI 更好看" | "页面在 375px / 768px / 1440px 三个断点下视觉一致,无溢出" | | "修复所有 bug" | "`npm test` 全部通过,且 `git diff` 只包含修复相关改动" | | "写好文档" | "README.md 包含安装/使用/API 三个章节,每个章节有代码示例" | | "性能优化" | "Lighthouse Performance 分数 ≥ 90,LCP < 2.5s" | 4. **Any constraints?** Don't touch certain files? Must use specific tools? Budget limit? Time limit? 5. **What agent / harness?** Claude Code (`/goal`), Codex (Automations), Pi, or generic? **Phase 1 complete when** you have answers to all 5 questions. If the user can't answer #3, help them brainstorm verifiable conditions — this is the most common failure point. ### Phase 2 — Draft the goal Write the goal in the target agent's format. Follow these rules: The three shapes below are the formats this skill deliberately maintains for the harnesses it is most often pointed at. They are a snapshot, not a standard: when the target harness documents a different shape, follow the harness and treat the block here as the fallback. Any harness not listed uses the generic block. **For Claude Code `/goal`**: ``` Goal: [one-line task description] Completion criteria: - [ ] [checkable condition 1] - [ ] [checkable condition 2] - [ ] [checkable condition 3] Constraints: - [file/area restrictions] - [tool/approach restrictions] - [budget/time limits] Context: - [key files to read first] - [relevant docs/specs] - [related issues/PRs] ``` **For Codex Automations**: ``` Task: [one-line description] Frequency: [once / on push / on schedule] Verification: [checkable condition] Workspace: [project path] ``` **For Pi / generic**: ``` 任务:[一句话] 完成标准: - [ ] [可验证条件 1] - [ ] [可验证条件 2] 限制:[约束条件] ``` ### Phase 3 — Verify the goal Before presenting the final goal, **self-check**: - [ ] Can an agent read the completion criteria and unambiguously decide "done" vs "not done"? - [ ] Is every criterion **observable** without human judgment? (No "looks good", "feels right") - [ ] Are the constraints specific enough to prevent scope creep? - [ ] Is the context sufficient for the agent to start working without asking "where" or "how"? If any check fails in standalone mode, go back to Phase 1 and ask the user to clarify that specific point. In compiled-handoff mode, report the source as not agent-ready and name the missing evidence instead of asking a new planning question. ### Phase 4 — Deliver In standalone mode, present the final goal and end with: > 🎯 把这个 goal 粘贴到 [agent 名称] 里,它就会自己跑到完成。如果中途卡住,告诉我哪条完成标准没达到,我帮你调。 In compiled-handoff mode, the upstream skill owns the delivery wrapper. Return the goal in the requested harness format without adding this standalone closing line. --- ## Examples 下面两个示例里的仓库名、目录结构和文件路径都是占位符,不代表任何真实项目的约定。真正产出的 goal 必须写目标仓库**当前**的真实路径,不要照抄这里的形状。 ### Example 1: Code review automation **User**: "帮我写个 goal,自动审查 PR" **Clarified**: - Task: 审查当前分支相对于 main 的所有改动 - Where: 当前工作仓库 - Done: 输出一份审查报告,列出所有 P0/P1 问题,每个问题标注文件和行号 - Constraints: 只读,不改文件 - Agent: Claude Code **Output**: ``` Goal: 审查当前分支相对于 origin/main 的 diff Completion criteria: - [ ] 已读取完整的 git diff - [ ] 已检查安全漏洞(SQL 注入、XSS、密钥泄露) - [ ] 已检查逻辑错误(空指针、竞态条件、边界条件) - [ ] 已检查代码规范(命名、结构、重复代码) - [ ] 输出审查报告,每个问题标注:严重度 + 文件:行号 + 问题描述 + 修复建议 Constraints: - 只读,不修改任何文件 - 只关注当前分支的改动,不审查已有代码 Context: - 项目背景:<一句话说明这个仓库是什么> - 设计 spec:<仓库内的设计文档> ``` ### Example 2: UI redesign **User**: "帮我写个 goal,重做这个页面" **Clarified**: - Task: 用 shadcn 组件库重做目标页面 - Done: 页面在 3 个断点下视觉一致,所有交互有 hover/focus/active 状态,通过 tsc 类型检查 - Constraints: 不改变现有 API 接口,使用项目已有的 Tailwind 配置 - Agent: Claude Code **Output**: ``` Goal: 用 shadcn/ui 组件库重做目标页面 Completion criteria: - [ ] 所有组件替换为 shadcn/ui 等价组件 - [ ] 页面在 375px / 768px / 1440px 断点下无溢出、无错位 - [ ] 所有可交互元素有 hover、focus、active 状态 - [ ] `tsc --noEmit` 0 errors - [ ] 页面加载后无 console error Constraints: - 不修改 API 客户端目录下的任何文件 - 使用项目已有的 Tailwind 主题配置 - 不引入新的 npm 依赖(shadcn 除外) Context: - 当前页面:<页面组件文件> - UI 组件:<组件库入口文件> - 样式:<全局样式入口> ``` --- ## Special Rules - **Never skip Phase 1 question #3 in standalone mode.** If the user can't define "done", the goal will fail. Help them brainstorm. - **Never re-interview in compiled-handoff mode.** Approved evidence already owns clarification and product decisions; missing evidence means the source is not agent-ready. - **One verifiable condition per checkbox.** Don't combine multiple conditions into one line. - **Constraints are your friend.** They prevent the agent from "optimizing" unrelated files or introducing breaking changes. - **If the task is too large for one goal**, suggest breaking it into 2-3 smaller goals with clear handoffs. - **For research/analysis goals** (no code changes), the completion criterion is "output a report with specific sections".