$npx -y skills add openai/skills --skill define-goalHelp the user define a concrete, measurable goal before starting work, especially when they ask to use the goal tool, create a goal, set an objective, clarify success criteria, or turn a fuzzy intention into a quantitative outcome. Use this skill for goal creation and goal refine
| 1 | # Define Goal |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Overview |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Shape the user's intent into an objective an agent can pursue honestly. Prefer measurable outcomes, explicit evidence, and bounded scope over activity descriptions. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | This skill covers goal definition and goal-tool creation only. Do not create intermediate planning artifacts, durable snapshots, ledgers, decision logs, or resume files from this skill. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | ## Workflow |
| 10 | |
| 11 | 1. Confirm that goal definition is actually needed. |
| 12 | - Use this skill when the user asks for `$define-goal`, asks to create or set a goal, asks for the goal tool, or wants help turning an intention into a clear objective. |
| 13 | - If the user only asks for ordinary implementation work, do the work directly instead of forcing goal creation. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | 2. Restate the likely goal in concrete terms. |
| 16 | A usable goal names: |
| 17 | - the specific outcome that will be true |
| 18 | - the main artifact, system, repo, environment, or user-facing behavior involved |
| 19 | - how completion will be verified |
| 20 | - what is in scope |
| 21 | - what is out of scope when ambiguity would matter |
| 22 | - the stop condition for asking the user instead of grinding |
| 23 | |
| 24 | 3. Make it quantitative when the domain supports it. |
| 25 | Prefer numbers that represent real success, not decorative precision: |
| 26 | - pass/fail validators: exact tests, checks, CI jobs, evals, commands, or acceptance criteria |
| 27 | - quality thresholds: latency, error rate, cost, accuracy, recall, precision, coverage, flake rate, bundle size, memory, uptime, completion rate, or manual review criteria |
| 28 | - artifact constraints: file paths, affected modules, allowed commands, output formats, target environments, deadlines, or maximum blast radius |
| 29 | - evidence counts: number of reproduced failures, successful reruns, reviewed examples, migrated records, addressed comments, or verified cases |
| 30 | |
| 31 | 4. Repair weak goals before setting them. |
| 32 | - Rewrite vague goals into measurable objectives when local context makes the rewrite safe. |
| 33 | - Ask one concise clarification question when the missing detail changes the intended outcome or validation. |
| 34 | - Reject pure activity goals such as "make progress," "keep investigating," "improve things," or "work on X" unless they are sharpened into a verifiable outcome. |
| 35 | |
| 36 | 5. Check active goal state before creating a goal. |
| 37 | - Call `get_goal`. |
| 38 | - If there is no active goal and the objective meets the quality bar, call `create_goal`. |
| 39 | - If there is an active goal that still matches the user's intent, continue using it instead of creating a duplicate. |
| 40 | - If there is an active goal that conflicts with the new request, ask whether to finish the current goal, mark it complete if done, or start a separate goal-backed thread. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | 6. Create the goal only after it passes the quality bar. |
| 43 | - Use a single concise objective string. |
| 44 | - Include the verification evidence in the objective itself. |
| 45 | - Include scope bounds when they constrain the work. |
| 46 | - Include a token budget only when the user explicitly requested one. |
| 47 | - Do not call `create_goal` for an ordinary multi-step task unless the user explicitly asked for goal-backed work. |
| 48 | |
| 49 | ## Goal Quality Bar |
| 50 | |
| 51 | Before `create_goal`, the objective should answer: |
| 52 | |
| 53 | - What concrete thing will be true when this is done? |
| 54 | - What evidence will prove it? |
| 55 | - What quantitative or binary threshold defines success? |
| 56 | - What scope boundaries matter? |
| 57 | - What should cause the agent to stop and ask? |
| 58 | |
| 59 | Good: |
| 60 | |
| 61 | > Reduce checkout API p95 latency below 250 ms for the documented slow path by making the smallest safe server-side change, then verify with `npm run test:checkout` and the existing local latency benchmark showing p95 under 250 ms across 3 consecutive runs. |
| 62 | |
| 63 | Good: |
| 64 | |
| 65 | > Resolve the open review comments on PR 123 that request code changes, update only the affected auth files and tests, and verify with the targeted auth test command plus `gh pr view 123` showing no unresolved change-request threads. |
| 66 | |
| 67 | Weak: |
| 68 | |
| 69 | > Make checkout faster. |
| 70 | |
| 71 | Weak: |
| 72 | |
| 73 | > Keep investigating the PR comments. |
| 74 | |
| 75 | ## Quantification Heuristics |
| 76 | |
| 77 | - For bugs, define success as reproduction first, fix second, and a failing-then-passing validator when possible. |
| 78 | - For tests, name the exact command and required pass condition. |
| 79 | - For performance, name the metric, target threshold, measurement method, and number of runs. |
| 80 | - For quality work, define an observable acceptance bar such as reviewed examples, lint/typecheck/test pass, or user-approved artifact. |
| 81 | - For research, define the decision the research must enable, the sources or systems in scope, and the evidence standard. |
| 82 | - For operations, define healthy state, mo |