X Openai Define Goal E2d53a0

---
name: x-openai-define-goal-e2d53a0
description: Help 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 refinement only; it does not manage durable snapshots, decision logs, or long-running execution artifacts.
---

### 导出副本边界与技能别名

迁移、安装、修复和经验回写只作用于当前加载的目标宿主技能副本。原 Codex 技能/MCP、下载的源码和 `original-skills` 均为来源材料，不因执行本副本而写入；只有用户另行明确要求配置 Codex 产品本身时，才按该产品流程处理指定目标。脚本需要安装目录或状态目录时，显式提供目标路径；不得从 `CODEX_HOME` 隐式推断写入位置。

跨技能名称可能沿用源库别名。先查 [技能别名表](../../skill-aliases.json)，优先选择同来源、同插件的条目，再使用其 `id` 调用或读取对应入口；不得假定旧 `$skill`、`superpowers:skill` 名称在新宿主直接注册。不能确定目标时先核对，不替换真实产品命令或 Shell 环境变量。

## 跨宿主使用约定

本副本供支持 Agent Skills 的客户端使用。先检查当前宿主实际提供的工具、权限和已连接服务，再执行正文工作流。原文中的宿主工具标识是能力参考；只有实际发现该工具时才可调用，其他宿主应使用经核验的等价 MCP、CLI 或 API。没有等价能力的步骤必须报告不可用，不能虚构调用或完成状态。

技能资源以本技能目录为基准；输出写入当前项目中用户指定的位置。通过技能名称或自然语言触发，具体快捷命令由宿主决定。涉及真实产品、模型 API、协议字段和官方网址的名称保持原意。授权、审批、隐私和工具范围限制在迁移后仍然有效；不得为兼容而扩大权限。具体依赖与迁移说明见同目录 `PORTABILITY.md`。

# Define Goal

## Overview

Shape the user's intent into an objective an agent can pursue honestly. Prefer measurable outcomes, explicit evidence, and bounded scope over activity descriptions.

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.

## Workflow

1. Confirm that goal definition is actually needed.
   - Use this skill when the user asks for `x-openai-define-goal-e2d53a0`, asks to create or set a goal, asks for the goal tool, or wants help turning an intention into a clear objective.
   - If the user only asks for ordinary implementation work, do the work directly instead of forcing goal creation.

2. Restate the likely goal in concrete terms.
   A usable goal names:
   - the specific outcome that will be true
   - the main artifact, system, repo, environment, or user-facing behavior involved
   - how completion will be verified
   - what is in scope
   - what is out of scope when ambiguity would matter
   - the stop condition for asking the user instead of grinding

3. Make it quantitative when the domain supports it.
   Prefer numbers that represent real success, not decorative precision:
   - pass/fail validators: exact tests, checks, CI jobs, evals, commands, or acceptance criteria
   - quality thresholds: latency, error rate, cost, accuracy, recall, precision, coverage, flake rate, bundle size, memory, uptime, completion rate, or manual review criteria
   - artifact constraints: file paths, affected modules, allowed commands, output formats, target environments, deadlines, or maximum blast radius
   - evidence counts: number of reproduced failures, successful reruns, reviewed examples, migrated records, addressed comments, or verified cases

4. Repair weak goals before setting them.
   - Rewrite vague goals into measurable objectives when local context makes the rewrite safe.
   - Ask one concise clarification question when the missing detail changes the intended outcome or validation.
   - Reject pure activity goals such as "make progress," "keep investigating," "improve things," or "work on X" unless they are sharpened into a verifiable outcome.

5. Check active goal state before creating a goal.
   - Discover the current host’s goal-management capability first. If it actually exposes `get_goal` / `create_goal`, use those documented operations; otherwise use a verified equivalent state/create interface.
   - If no goal-management tool exists, provide the refined objective and acceptance criteria in chat and state that no durable goal was created. Do not invent a tool or an automatically running task.
   - If the discovered interface confirms no active goal and the objective meets the quality bar, create it through that interface.
   - If there is an active goal that still matches the user's intent, continue using it instead of creating a duplicate.
   - 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.

6. Create the goal only after it passes the quality bar.
   - Use a single concise objective string.
   - Include the verification evidence in the objective itself.
   - Include scope bounds when they constrain the work.
   - Include a token budget only when the user explicitly requested one.
   - Do not call `create_goal` for an ordinary multi-step task unless the user explicitly asked for goal-backed work.

## Goal Quality Bar

Before `create_goal`, the objective should answer:

- What concrete thing will be true when this is done?
- What evidence will prove it?
- What quantitative or binary threshold defines success?
- What scope boundaries matter?
- What should cause the agent to stop and ask?

Good:

> 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.

Good:

> 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.

Weak:

> Make checkout faster.

Weak:

> Keep investigating the PR comments.

## Quantification Heuristics

- For bugs, define success as reproduction first, fix second, and a failing-then-passing validator when possible.
- For tests, name the exact command and required pass condition.
- For performance, name the metric, target threshold, measurement method, and number of runs.
- For quality work, define an observable acceptance bar such as reviewed examples, lint/typecheck/test pass, or user-approved artifact.
- For research, define the decision the research must enable, the sources or systems in scope, and the evidence standard.
- For operations, define healthy state, monitoring window, failure threshold, and rollback or escalation trigger.

## Clarifying Questions

Ask only when a reasonable rewrite would risk pursuing the wrong outcome. Keep the question short and oriented around the missing validator or scope boundary.

Useful question shapes:

- "What metric should define success here: latency, cost, accuracy, or user-visible behavior?"
- "Which environment should I verify against: local, staging, or production?"
- "What is the minimum evidence you want before I mark this goal complete?"

If the user cannot provide a metric, propose the most honest binary validator available and ask for confirmation.