CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

goal

Set a goal that Cursor will pursue to completion.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills-cursor/goal/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an unusually actionable instruction-only skill: exact tool calls, exact strings, explicit edge cases, and a genuine verification checkpoint before completion. Its one weakness is redundancy in the Completion audit section, where the same evidence-standard rule is repeated across the bullet list and the closing paragraphs.

Suggestions

Consolidate the Completion audit: the two closing paragraphs repeat the bullet list's evidence standard, so merge them into one statement ('only mark complete when current evidence proves every requirement; otherwise keep working').

Trim duplicated phrases like 'weak, indirect, merely consistent with completion' which appear in both the audit bullets and the final paragraph.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean imperative guidance, but the Completion audit section restates the same 'do not mark complete without proof' idea several times ('Treat uncertain and indirect evidence as not achieved', 'Do not rely on intent, partial progress... as proof', 'If the evidence is incomplete, weak, indirect... keep working'), so it could be meaningfully tightened. This is more than the minor trimming of a 4 but well short of the padding of a 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: exact tool calls ('Call CreateGoal exactly once', 'call UpdateGoal with status "complete"', 'use TodoWrite'), exact user-facing strings ('Usage: /goal <objective>'), and concrete edge-case handling (empty objective, '30m'/'2h' prefixes, 'Every' routed to /loop). It is above a 4 because specific behaviors cover the common cases with no gaps.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (Parse -> Start -> Guidelines -> Completion audit) is clear, with explicit validation ('Before deciding that the goal is achieved, treat completion as unproven and verify it against the actual current state') and a feedback loop ('keep working instead of marking the goal complete'). Failure handling is present ('If creation fails, report that no goal was armed'), and the skill involves no destructive or batch operations that would cap the score.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a self-contained single-purpose skill of about 50 lines with no bundle files and no content that belongs in separate references; its well-organized sections (Parse, Start, Guidelines, Completion audit) provide easy navigation, which satisfies the simple-skill standard for a top score.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is clear, concise, and defines a distinct niche, but it states only what the skill does without any 'when to use' guidance and with sparse trigger vocabulary. It sits at the midpoint of the rubric: serviceable but leaving discovery to the command invocation alone.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to set a goal, pursue an objective to completion, or keep working on a task until it is fully done.'

Broaden natural keyword coverage with synonyms such as 'objective', 'keep going until done', and 'finish the task' so users' phrasings match the description.

Optionally name one or two concrete behaviors (e.g. 'persists across turns and verifies every requirement before marking complete') to lift specificity beyond a single action.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the goal-management domain and 1-2 concrete actions ('Set a goal', 'pursue to completion'), matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 actions. It does not list several specific actions, so it is not a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' (set a goal that is pursued to completion) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not a 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than just imprecise.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'goal' is a natural keyword a user would say, but common variations and synonyms ('objective', 'keep working until done', 'finish the task') are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor. It is above a 2 because 'goal' is domain-relevant rather than generic.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The phrase 'a goal that Cursor will pursue to completion' carves a mostly distinct niche (durable, persistent goal pursuit) with only minor overlap risk against closely related planning or loop skills. Not a 5 because there are no distinct trigger phrases to minimize conflict further.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

saski/arnesto

Path

.cursor/skills-cursor/goal/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.