跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

goal

Autonomous goal loop — give it ONE goal plus how to verify it, the agent runs check→fix→check itself and comes back only with the finished result (code with audit, research with fact-check, content with critique, audit/backtest). Self-verification instead of constant supervision, with hard safety guards. Vary the loop with a verification rubric designed before it runs. Triggers — "work autonomously to the result", "don't come back until it's done", "run the loop yourself", "drive it to done".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

/goal — autonomous goal loop

You prompt yourself a proactive executor: state a GOAL plus how to verify it, and the agent runs check→fix→check on its own, returning ONLY with the finished result. Frees you from sitting at the monitor nudging every step.

This instruments four principles (think before code · simplicity · surgical edits · drive through a verifiable target) into a reusable loop. Not a replacement for a heavy decomposing orchestrator — /goal is for ONE mid-sized goal. The design phase (goal / verification / control rubrics) is cherry-picked from Looper (ksimback) — the framework wasn't installed, the techniques were.

When to use

  • A clear goal with a verifiable done-criterion: a bug (test reproduces → green), research (facts verified), content (critic ≥ threshold), audit (findings adversarially checked), refactor (tests + lint green).
  • NOT for: trivial work (just do it), pure discussion, and ⚠️ NOT for irreversible/production mutations without confirmation (see guards).

Goal template (fill in BEFORE starting — design phase, don't skip)

Goal: <a concrete OUTCOME + the artifact/state that proves completion; NOT "improve X">
  Sharpness test: what counts as "done" if two competent agents disagreed? Subjective → measurable proxy.
Scope: included <…> / excluded <…> / max depth <…>
Context: <path to project/data, symptoms, logs — what to READ, not assume>
Checks (typed, programmatic FIRST — see "Verification"):
  - [programmatic] <test / compile / run script / grep an invariant / critic ≥ N>
  - [judge] <rubric for semantics — judged by a SEPARATE pass, not the author>
  - [human] <user sign-off: taste / business / money / legal risk>
Done-criterion: <all programmatic green AND judge=pass AND human (if any)>
Budget (whichever hits first = STOP): cycles N=3-5 · time <if relevant> · tokens <if relevant>

Verification — types (programmatic → judge → human)

  • programmatic (preferred WHENEVER possible): a command returns pass/fail — test/build/lint/schema/grep/script. Deterministic goes FIRST.
  • judge (semantics code can't cheaply check — content/research/design quality): scored against a SPECIFIC rubric (measurable dimensions, not "high quality"). ⚠️ the agent does NOT judge its own semantics (a host grading its own work tends to declare it done = the failure mode of naive autonomy) → a DIFFERENT pass / different model judges. Verdict as strict JSON: {verdict: pass|revise, blocking_issues: […], confidence}; if it doesn't parse → treat as revise.
  • human: taste / business judgment / private knowledge / legal risk / money — the user signs off (= the mutation guard, the loop does not bypass it).
  • Anti-patterns: "no errors" as the only criterion; all judge/human when a programmatic check exists; a rubric with no dimensions; a judge given hidden context it never received.

Loop rules

  1. Reproduce/understand BEFORE editing — find root cause, don't patch blindly (blind patching burns context).
  2. Minimal surgical edit — only what moves toward the goal.
  3. Run REAL checks — commands/script/run, not "looks right".
  4. Failed → read logs, fix, retry. Don't stop after the first failure.
  5. Don't ask while you can move yourself — but don't invent missing facts (unknown API/version → look it up, don't guess).
  6. STOP only when: external access/secret/confirmation of a production mutation is needed, OR ≥N failed cycles on the same error (anti-stall), OR no-progress (M cycles with no metric/artifact advance even if errors differ — spinning burns context), OR budget (time/tokens) exhausted → escalate.

⚠️ Guards (the difference from "just autonomous" when real money/irreversible actions are in play)

  • Production/irreversible mutation = ALWAYS confirm; the loop does not bypass it: process restart, order, deploy, rm, git push, kill — the loop reaches the mutation point and STOPS for confirmation. Read-only/code/backtest/content cycle freely.
  • Result honesty = blocking gate: NEVER fake a "green" — real runs, not mocks; no faked test/result. Can't reach it → STOP + escalate, NOT fake.
  • Back up BEFORE editing + verify AFTER by checking (not on faith): no "it works" without a live run; positive evidence (the feature fired in logs); "no errors" ≠ working.
  • Numeric stop-criterion — ≥3-5 cycles on the same error/file = STOP, don't force it.
  • Durable trail for a long loop — run-log.md (each step/decision/check result/blocker) + state.json (latest state): survives a context compaction / session break, resume at a gate boundary, not from scratch. Optional for short loops.
  • Side-effect after restart = idempotency/duplicate-check — an effectful action (order/deploy/notification/write) must not duplicate when the loop restarts. Before repeating an action, check whether it already happened.

Final report (only when the goal is reached OR on STOP)

  • Root cause briefly (what was actually wrong, not the symptom).
  • Diff summary — what changed and why (each edit ← from the goal).
  • The real check commands and their RESULT (the output, not "passed").
  • If STOP — what blocks it + what's already done + what's needed from the user.

Anti-actions

  • ❌ Don't bypass confirmation of a production mutation "because it's autonomous mode".
  • ❌ Don't fake check results to exit the loop.
  • ❌ Don't patch blindly without root cause (≥3 blind = STOP).
  • ❌ Don't grind >N cycles on the same error — it burns context, escalate.
  • ❌ Don't return "seems done" without checks actually run.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

konsilium

免费

Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/data analysis (the council has no data access) and not for factual lookups. Triggers — "convene the council", "run it past the council", "go/no-go", "pressure-test this".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

longread

免费

Write an analytical longform piece — a 4-phase pipeline from raw idea to finished text, with research-backed facts and a devil's-advocate pass before publishing. Invoke /longread <topic>. Triggers — "write a longread about X", "write an analytical breakdown of Y", "write an expert post", "turn this into an article".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

pre-push

免费

A gate before git push / deploy — assembled from your own tools (secret-grep + slop-scan + code-review + build/compile + optional worktree isolation), so AI junk (slop / bugs / secrets / uncompiled code) never reaches a remote or a production server. Turns "I hope it's clean" into a verifiable criterion. Branches: web/OSS (git push/PR) vs deploy-to-server service. Triggers — "check before push", "clean push", "gate before push", "finalize before commit", "run before deploy".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

proof

免费

Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually check?".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

Security launch audit for a public web app BEFORE you ship or hand it to a client — "vibe coders are getting sued", systematized. An executable pipeline: classify (static / full-stack / AI) → run sections (secrets+supply-chain, DB, auth, infra+headers, legal, LLM/injection) orchestrating deterministic tools + manual checks → GO/NO-GO report. Adapted from Prajwal Tomar's playbook, extended with prompt-injection / supply-chain / secret-history / dependency-CVE layers. NOT the same as pre-push (that = clean push; this = is the product itself safe to launch). Triggers — "security checklist for the site", "audit before launch", "is the site safe", "check before handing to client".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

Preventive hygiene audit of your own Claude Code configuration — memory files, project context (CLAUDE.md), rules, permissions, skills — a deterministic scan of sizes / broken links / stale entries / excessive permissions / junk + interpretation + targeted fixes by agreement. Keeps the setup from rotting before it breaks. Triggers — "check the system", "system health", "workflow hygiene", "what to clean up", "audit memory", "optimize the system".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

查看 Sanexxxx777 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题