goal-prompt-builder

name goal-prompt-builder description Build high-quality /goal commands for OpenAI Codex CLI 0.128+ that maximize audit-friendliness and minimize false-completion. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write, draft, generate, improve, or refine a /goal prompt — even if they don't say "skill" — including phrases like "help me write a goal", "design a goal for X", "review my goal command", "make a goal for this repo", or any request involving long-running Codex tasks. Also trigger when the user mentions Ralph loop, persistent agent objectives, or asks Codex to "keep working until done". Produces a complete, copy-pasteable /goal command using the 5-section golden template (Objective/Scope/Constraints/Done when/Stop if), supports three interaction modes (step-by-step, full-description, hybrid), auto-detects project type (Node/Python/Swift/Go/Rust/static) by inspecting filesystem or repo URL, reads AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md if present, and predicts audit-friendliness before output. /goal Prompt Builder This skill turns a fuzzy task description ("我想让 Codex 帮我重构鉴权") into a complete, audit-friendly /goal command that's ready to paste into Codex CLI 0.128+. Why this skill exists Codex 0.128 added /goal as a persistent objective with a runtime-injected audit prompt ( continuation.md ). The audit prompt forces the model to build a "prompt-to-artifact checklist" — but only if the user's goal text can be mapped to one . Vague goals produce vague checklists, which produce false completions. This skill exists to make sure every /goal you generate has the structure that lets the audit mechanism actually work. The golden template (5 sections, in this order) Every /goal Claude generates with this skill follows this structure exactly: /goal <objective>. [Optional: First action: read X, Y, Z and report counts. Wait for ack.] Scope: <files / subsystem / feature area>. Constraints: - <what not to change> - <compatibility / permission boundaries> - <project-specific rules from AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md> Done when: 1. <verifiable artifact 1 — cite file or command> 2. <verifiable artifact 2> ... Stop if: - <mechanically detectable condition 1> - <mechanically detectable condition 2> ... Use a token budget of <N> tokens for this goal. Why this order : matches continuation.md 's expected reading flow — objective first, then scope to bound the search, then constraints to prune options, then acceptance to define success, then stop-if as runtime guards. Workflow When this skill triggers, walk the user through these 6 steps. Step 0 (interaction mode) and Step 1 (project detection) happen automatically — Step 0 needs one user choice, Step 1 needs zero if filesystem is accessible. Don't skip steps unless the user explicitly says "I'll fill it in myself, just give me the template". Step 0: Pick interaction mode This skill supports three interaction modes. Ask once at the start: 你希望用哪种方式生成 /goal？ A. 询问式 — 我一段一段问你（最稳，适合第一次写 /goal） B. 全描述式 — 你一句话描述需求，我拆解后只问你确认不确定的地方（最快，适合熟手） C. 混合式（默认） — 先选场景模板，再问 3-5 个关键问题（推荐） Once chosen, follow the matching flow: A. 询问式 → Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3a → 3b → 3c → 3d → 3e → Step 4 → Step 5 (each input gathered separately) B. 全描述式 → Step 1 → ask "用一段话描述你想做什么 / scope / 验收 / 不希望发生什么" → parse into 5 sections → Step 4 → ask user to confirm only the gaps → Step 5 C. 混合式 → Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 (batched: ask all missing fields at once) → Step 4 → Step 5 Mode B is most powerful when the user has thought about the task. Mode A is safest when they haven't. Mode C is the default sweet spot. If the user doesn't answer this question explicitly, default to mode C and proceed. Step 1: Detect (don't ask) the project type Auto-detection comes first. Only fall back to asking if detection fails. Run this detection sequence: Check the conversation context. Has the user already provided a repo URL, file path, or code snippet? Read those for hints first. Probe the filesystem (if you have file tools and the user is in a project directory): package.json exists → Node / TypeScript pyproject.toml or requirements.txt or setup.py → Python *.xcodeproj/ or Package.swift → Swift / iOS Cargo.toml → Rust go.mod → Go astro.config.* / next.config.* / _config.yml / mkdocs.yml → Static / docs project Fetch the repo if the user gave a URL (only if web tools available): GitHub URL → fetch the README + try to identify config files Read CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md if they exist (these are gold for Constraints) Fall back to asking only if all auto-detection failed: 我没法自动判断项目类型——这是 Node / Python / Swift / Go / Rust / 静态 / 其他？ When detection succeeds, announce what you found in one sentence so the user can correct you: 检测到这是一个 Swift / iOS 项目（找到 lingolearn.xcodeproj + CLAUDE.md）。 我会按 Swift 项目默认约束适配。如果不对，告诉我。 Then load the matching reference from references/project-types.md . Also load any CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md found — these contain project-specific rules that override defaults. Step 2: Pick a scenario template Ask: 这个 goal 属于哪种类型？ 选项 说明 A. 重构 改一个文件 / 子系统 B. 新功能实现 已有 SDD spec 的功能 C. 批量补测试 / 修 bug 重复型任务，可枚举来源 D. 代码考古 / 研究 只读不动手 E. UI / 行为 audit 对照文档审实现 F. 守门员 review 评估能否合并，不修改 G. 自定义 让我描述 Each option maps to a different default skeleton — see references/scenarios.md for the full templates. Step 3: Gather the 5 inputs (in this order) Ask only what's still missing. Don't ask all 5 at once — ask incrementally so the user can think. 3a. Objective (一句话) One sentence describing what changes by the end. If the user gives a verb-less noun phrase ("Cohere rerank support"), turn it into a verb phrase ("Add Cohere rerank support to retrieval pipeline"). Reject vague verbs like "improve", "optimize", "clean up" — ask for the concrete change. 3b. Scope (改什么、不改什么) Which files / directories / subsystems are in play For brownfield projects: probe whether v1.x beta files or sensitive modules exist that should be off-limits 3c. Constraints (硬约束) Pull from AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md if available Add project-type defaults from the loaded reference (e.g., for Swift: "do not modify project.pbxproj") Ask if there's a "MUST NOT modify" list 3d. Done when (验收清单) This is the most important section. Push back hard if items are vague. Each item must cite a file, command, test name, or measurable artifact. Replace "测试通过" → " <exact command> exits 0; paste summary" Replace "做完" → enumerate the deliverables Aim for 5-8 items; fewer than 3 is a red flag 3e. Stop if (停止条件) Each must be mechanically detectable Include project-type defaults (e.g., for Node: "needs npm install for new dep") Include a regression guard: "existing tests start failing — do not fix by editing tests" Step 4: Predict audit-friendliness Before showing the final command, internally score it (don't show the math, just the verdict): Acceptance count : 0 = bad, 1-2 = warn, 3-5 = good, 6-8 = excellent Vague verbs detected : "improve", "optimize", "全部", "彻底", "all", "everything" → flag Stop-if specificity : "if unclear" = bad, "if file X appears in git diff" = good Token budget present : missing = warn Mechanical verifiability : every Done-when item has a cite-able artifact = good If score is below ~70%, don't ship the command yet . Instead, surface the weak spots and ask the user to refine. Be specific: ⚠ 我发现三处可以加强的地方： Done when 第 2 条"测试覆盖" → 改成"测试名称 + 退出码"会更准 Stop if 缺少"现有测试 regression"兜底 Token 预算未指定，建议 80K（基于 scope 大小） Step 5: Render and cite design choices When all checks pass, render the final /goal in a code block (so it's copy-pasteable) and follow with a brief explanation of the key design choices — not a tutorial, just enough so the user knows why each choice was made. Format: /goal <full command here> 几个关键设计选择 ： 为什么 Done when 第 N 条这么写 为什么 Stop if 包含某条 为什么预算定这个数 Keep this explanation under 8 short lines. The user is here for the command, not a lecture. Project type loading When the project type is known, read the corresponding reference: Node / TypeScript → references/project-types.md (Node section) Python → references/project-types.md (Python section) Swift → references/project-types.md (Swift section) Go → references/project-types.md (Go section) Rust → references/project-types.md (Rust section) Static / docs → references/project-types.md (Static section) Each section provides: Default test command with full flags Default build / type-check command Project-type-specific Stop-if bullets to include Common false-completion traps to guard against Scenario templates For the chosen scenario, read the corresponding skeleton: A. 重构 → references/scenarios.md § Refactor B. 新功能实现 → references/scenarios.md § Feature C. 批量补测试 / 修 bug → references/scenarios.md § Batch D. 代码考古 → references/scenarios.md § Archaeology E. UI / 行为 audit → references/scenarios.md § UI Audit F. 守门员 review → references/scenarios.md § Gatekeeper G. 自定义 → use bare 5-section template, no skeleton Each scenario has its own emphasis — e.g., archaeology goals emphasize Constraints (禁区), feature goals emphasize "First action: read SPEC + report counts". Worked examples When the user's case is ambiguous about how to fill a section, consult references/examples.md . It contains 5 end-to-end transformations (vague request → final command) covering the most common patterns: Refactor (Node/TS) — cleanest baseline Feature with SDD spec (Swift) — most heavily constrained Vague request → push back instead of rendering — when not to render Archaeology (static / docs project) — read-only goals "Just give me the template" — when to skip the interview Especially read example 3 for guidance on when to refuse rendering. Don't ship a goal you can't defend — surface the weak spots and ask for refinement first. Hard rules (always follow) These are non-negotiable. They come from continuation.md 's actual behavior. Never write Stop-if as "if unclear, stop" — that's not mechanically detectable. Ask the user to enumerate concrete conditions. Never let "all / everything / 全部 / 彻底" through — flag and ask for a number or enumerable source. Always include a token budget — missing budget = no soft stop = potential runaway. Always include a "no test-rewriting" stop-if for any goal that touches tested code: "Existing tests start failing — this is a regression, do not 'fix' by editing tests." For SDD-driven goals (scenario B), the first action is always "read X files and report counts" — bypasses @filename reference uncertainty and exposes loading failures early. For brownfield projects, always ask about MUST NOT modify list — the absence of one is the #1 cause of scope creep. Common failure modes to coach the user through "测试通过"做验收 : too vague. Force into "exact command + exit code + paste summary". 没有 Stop if : goal is a one-way door. Add at least 3 mechanically detectable conditions. 预算 > 300K : too big to audit reliably. Suggest splitting into two goals. Scope = "整个仓库" : too wide. Push for a specific directory or subsystem. "我之后再补 acceptance" : this is the failure pattern. Refuse to render until at least 3 items exist. What this skill does NOT do Does not run the /goal for the user — it only generates the text Does not validate the project state (no git status checks, no test runs) Does not handle Codex versions older than 0.128 — /goal doesn't exist there Does not generate prompts for /plan , /compact , or other Codex commands Output format reminder Final output is always : A markdown code block containing the /goal command (so the user can copy) A short bullet list of the key design choices (no more than 8 short lines) Optional : a one-line "audit-friendliness verdict" (e.g., "审计友好度：优秀 · 7 项验收 · 0 风险标记") That's it. No long lecture. The user is here for a command.