# Origin Goal > Run a long-lived, workstream-driven objective inside explicit human boundaries. Use when the user asks to keep working until a goal or checkpoint is reached, resume or execute a docs workstream, orchestrate subagents over multiple slices, control retries or metered cost, or prepare a durable autonomous run with human approval gates. Establish the control unit using the repository's own convention, and complete the preflight interview before starting or resuming execution. - Skill: `aki2022/origin-goal` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add aki2022/origin-goal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/aki2022/origin-goal/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: Aki2022 (https://skillmd.com/u/aki2022) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/aki2022/origin-goal --- # Origin Goal Treat the workstream as durable truth, the runtime goal as the persistence engine, and the plan as the current execution view. Keep the parent agent responsible for authorization, integration, budgets, and completion. ## 1. Establish the target workstream 1. Read `docs/00_index.md` when present, then read only the relevant active workstream, linked specs, guides, and necessary code. 2. Discover the repository's own workstream convention before asking anything. Layouts differ in practice: `docs/workstreams/`, `docs/specs/workstreams/active/`, an issue-based repository with no workstream directory, or `ISSUE-*` files used as the control unit. Find the actual convention from `docs/00_index.md` and the directory tree, then use it. Never assume `docs/workstreams/` exists, and never propose a parallel structure beside a working one. 3. Make control-unit selection the first human interaction, but bring a decision rather than an open question. If exactly one active unit matches, name it and ask whether to resume it. If several are plausible, recommend the best match. 4. Choose the _kind_ of control unit yourself from observable facts; ask only when they conflict. Use a workstream when the work spans multiple slices, touches metered services, or needs a human gate. Use a standalone issue — or the repository's existing issue unit — for one bounded, reversible, non-metered change. Use docs-only when nothing is implemented. State the chosen unit and the reason in one line instead of asking the user to pick it. Do not migrate history without approval. 5. If no matching workstream exists, say so and ask first whether to create one through `origin-doc-update`, proposing a workstream name and one-sentence scope. After approval, invoke `origin-doc-update`, follow its human-boundary interview, and create the workstream only after the complete boundary is confirmed. Do not ask downstream implementation questions before this create-or-select choice. 6. Reuse the recorded branch or worktree, but verify it exists first (`git branch -a`, `git worktree list`). **A recorded branch that is merged and deleted is stale bookkeeping, not missing work**: continue on the default branch or cut the next branch from it, and correct the record in the same slice. Do not create a parallel branch for resumed work, and do not resurrect a stale branch. **A recorded branch that still exists but is stale — unmerged, behind the default branch, its PR closed or absent — is also bookkeeping, not work in progress.** Do not build on it, and do not invent a suffixed sibling (`-2`), which is exactly the parallel branch this rule forbids. Instead: salvage anything it holds that is not already on the default branch, cut the next branch from the default branch under the workstream's own name, and rewrite the `branch:` record to it in the same slice. Deleting the stale branch is a separate, optional act that still needs the usual human approval — leaving it in place is always legal, because the record no longer points at it. If the salvage is not mechanical, because judging the value or correctness of what the branch holds is part of it, that is a question gate rather than a cleanup. **The stale branch usually already holds the workstream's own name**, so cutting the next branch under that name fails outright (`fatal: a branch named ... already exists`). A name collision that actually exists is the single case where a suffixed branch is allowed, and the suffix must be deterministic — `-`, never a counter like `-2`, because a name that changes between runs breaks shelf matching. Shelf matching is by prefix, so a dated sibling still matches. Nothing else is relaxed: still do not build on the stale branch, still treat its deletion as a human-approved act, and still leave it in place as the legal default. Record the generated name in `branch:` in the same slice, so the collision is resolved once rather than on every resume. **Salvage means what the branch itself added, and nothing else.** A stale branch is behind the default branch by definition, so `main..branch` presents the _reversal_ of everything the default branch gained since the fork as though the branch held it — measured once at 21 files and 474 deletions, including files merged minutes earlier in the same run. Read the branch's own commits instead (`git log main..branch`, `git show` each, or `git diff main...branch` with three dots), and take only those changes. This one is worth a check rather than care, because the failure is silent: the reverted work is _removed_, not conflicted, so nothing fails, tests that never covered the deleted files still pass, and the digest reports success. After salvaging and before committing, run `git diff --stat -- .` over the salvaged tree and confirm every deletion is one you meant. A deletion you cannot account for means the salvage took the whole range: drop it and redo it from the branch's own commits. ## 2. Complete preflight before execution Ask one question at a time, in dependency order. Inspect the repository first and do not ask for facts that are discoverable. Give a recommended answer with each question. Reuse still-valid answers already recorded in the workstream and ask only for missing, ambiguous, or changed boundaries. Confirm and record all applicable fields: 1. Objective, observable success criteria, and out-of-scope work. 2. Actions allowed autonomously. 3. Actions requiring confirmation, including external writes, sends, submissions, deploys, destructive changes, data migrations, authentication, secrets, dependencies, network access, and metered services. 4. Resource ceilings appropriate to the task: money and currency, tokens, elapsed time, external calls, scan volume, iterations, retries, concurrency, or another measurable unit. Do not hard-code a monetary default. Record `none` when no metered work is possible. 5. Test commands, evidence, quality thresholds, and required reviewers. 6. The next human checkpoint and early stop conditions. 7. Subagent division, write ownership, model tier, and concurrency. Treat creation and merge of a PR that passes its recorded test and CI gates as autonomous integration by default. Record a PR-specific human gate only when the user or repository policy explicitly requires one. This default does not override branch protection, failed checks, unavailable authority, or a repository-specific safety rule. Before any metered batch, estimate: `unit cost × execution count × scan volume × model/retry multiplier` State the assumptions and reserve. If monetary cost cannot be observed or reliably converted, ask for a measurable surrogate ceiling such as requests, tokens, runtime, or attempts. Never claim that a currency ceiling is enforced without usable price and usage telemetry. Stop before the approved ceiling would be exceeded. Do not start or resume the goal until the workstream records the confirmed Authorization Envelope and Human Gates. **A missing record is repaired, not treated as a gate.** When the recorded envelope, per-issue `runnability:`, or acceptance `verify:` lines are missing or malformed — `origin-doc-update`'s `validate_repo_docs.py` detects all three — do not silently downgrade the work to gated, and do not settle the gap in ad-hoc chat that evaporates with the session: run `origin-doc-update`'s human-boundary interview, write the confirmed answers back into the workstream file, and only then start execution. The interview's questions are this preflight's questions; the difference is that the answers land in the record, so no later run re-asks them. Route to `origin-grill` instead only when the gap is upstream of the workstream — the spec itself is too ambiguous to derive the boundary from. ## 3. Start or resume the runtime goal 1. If a matching goal exists, inspect it and resume it without replacing its objective or budget. 2. Treat an explicit `$origin-goal` request to run the workstream as permission to create a matching runtime goal after preflight when the runtime provides a goal primitive. 3. Express one durable objective and one verifiable stopping condition. Point the goal at the workstream instead of duplicating its full issue queue. 4. Use the runtime's native goal lifecycle. Do not mark a goal complete until every required acceptance and guide contract is satisfied. Do not mark it blocked unless the runtime's blocked-state requirements are also satisfied. 5. If no goal primitive is available, continue safe vertical slices within the current session and leave a precise workstream handoff. Do not enable Goal, edit runtime configuration, or launch an external loop automatically. Maintain a compact plan for the current slice and update it as work progresses. The plan is not a second backlog and must not replace the workstream. ## 4. Route subagents deliberately Delegate only concrete, bounded work that can proceed independently. Prefer parallel subagents for read-heavy exploration, test execution, log analysis, triage, and independent review. Avoid parallel writes to shared files. Choose the cheapest capable available model and reasoning tier: - Use a fast, lower-cost tier for searches, inventories, mechanical checks, summarization, and straightforward isolated edits. - Use the strongest appropriate tier for ambiguous design, cross-cutting implementation, integration, security, and difficult failure analysis. - Inherit the parent setup when no override has a clear benefit. Select only models exposed by the current runtime; do not invent or pin stale model names. Give each subagent a single deliverable, exact scope, expected evidence, and return format. Keep the parent agent responsible for the workstream, cost ledger, shared-file writes, conflict resolution, and final verification. Use separate worktrees or disjoint file ownership for parallel write tasks. Include subagent tokens, calls, time, and retries in the shared resource ceiling. Do not multiply agents merely because concurrency is available. ## 5. Execute vertical slices For each queued issue: 1. Confirm dependencies, acceptance criteria, and `guide_impact` before edits. 2. Prefer red-green-refactor where practical. 3. Implement the smallest complete vertical slice. 4. Run the agreed tests and inspect evidence from the environment. 5. Update required guides in the same slice. 6. Update workstream status, material decisions, budget state, and Next Actions. 7. Continue automatically while inside the Authorization Envelope. Update documentation at slice completion, a material decision, a changed budget, a blocker, or a human gate. Do not append a diary entry for every tool call, retry, or minor observation. Report progress compactly: current slice, verified result, remaining work, resource state when applicable, and blocker or next gate. ## 6. Control failures and stopping Classify failures by root cause using the failing action, stable error signature, and relevant environment state. Count the initial failure as attempt one. Stop after three consecutive failed attempts with the same root cause. Record the evidence, attempted remedies, last error, and the smallest human decision or external change needed. Do not count successful progress iterations or distinct root causes against this limit. Reset the counter only when evidence shows that the root cause changed, not merely because the prompt or wording changed. Stop immediately when: - the next action requires confirmation; - a resource ceiling would be exceeded; - the next human gate is reached; - acceptance requires unavailable evidence or authority; - scope must materially expand; or - a repository or runtime safety rule requires stopping. Do not leave an approval or input request waiting silently. Persist the exact question and current state in the workstream, then surface it to the user. ## 7. Finish or hand off Before declaring completion, verify every acceptance criterion, test gate, guide impact, resource constraint, and the runtime goal's stopping condition. Update the workstream and guides through `origin-doc-update`. Archive the workstream only when no required work remains and the recorded human gate permits closure. When stopping short of completion, leave only the durable facts needed to resume: completed slice, verification evidence, current failure count and root cause, remaining budget, blocker or gate, and the next executable action.