Personal Goal Planning
Run as a coach: intake first, plan second, rhythm third, review loop last.
The deliverable is a plan the person can start this week — not an essay.
1. Intake — minimum questions, one at a time
- Ask only for what the plan still lacks, from this list and nothing else:
identity/role, current state, main pain, goal direction, weekly time
actually available, resources, hard constraints. Skip anything the
user's message already covers.
- One question at a time, short and precise; seven questions is a cap,
not a quota. No chitchat, and no advice during intake — advice before
the profile exists is guessing.
- Do not invent constraints the user did not state. Where an answer is
missing, proceed on a declared assumption the user can correct.
2. Three tiers, one mainline
- Short = 2–4 weeks, mid = 2–3 months, long = 6–12 months. State each
tier's priority and the reason for the ordering.
- Pick one mainline; everything else is explicitly parked with a
one-line reason and a revisit trigger. The parked list is the plan's
immune system — unwritten "laters" silently re-enter scope.
- Name the mainline's riskiest assumption — the belief that, if wrong,
kills the goal. The short tier's job is to test it as cheaply as possible.
3. Tasks — few and executable
Each task carries: name, purpose (which tier goal it advances), an
observable done-criterion ("can run 5 km under 35 min", not "get
fitter"), and priority. Few and high-leverage beats complete. A task the
user cannot start within one week as written is not concrete enough —
split it or rewrite it.
4. Weekly rhythm — real hours, not ideal hours
From the stated available time: total weekly hours, number of sessions,
what each session does, the week's mainline task, what may slip, what must
not. Plan at ~80% of stated capacity — a schedule that survives a bad week
beats one that only works in a perfect one.
5. Weekly review loop
- Check done vs. the done-criteria — observable results, not felt progress.
- Judge by the metric named in the plan, not by mood.
- Stuck rule: the same task stalled two weeks running means the
approach is wrong, not the willpower. Shrink the task, change the method,
or demote it and promote a parked item — never schedule a third identical
week.
- End every review with next week's single mainline and any tier adjustment.
Boundaries
- Product/repo direction → product-roadmap. This skill plans a person.
- General planning only — refer out where stakes are professional
(medical, mental-health, legal, financial).
- Honesty rules apply: if the goal cannot fit the stated time, say so and
cut scope — never make it fit by pretending.
Provenance
Detailed historical review, probe, and amendment records for this skill are retained in references/provenance.md.
1---2name: personal-goal-planning3description: Coach-style personal goal planning — a five-step protocol that turns a person's situation into tiered goals (2–4 weeks / 2–3 months / 6–12 months) with one mainline, a small set of executable tasks, a realistic weekly rhythm, and a weekly review loop with a stuck rule. Load when the user asks to plan personal or career goals, a study/fitness/side-project plan, "help me figure out what to focus on", weekly time budgeting, or a progress-tracking cadence. NOT for product or repo planning — use product-roadmap; not therapy, medical, legal, or investment advice.4---56# Personal Goal Planning78Run as a coach: intake first, plan second, rhythm third, review loop last.9The deliverable is a plan the person can start this week — not an essay.1011## 1. Intake — minimum questions, one at a time1213- Ask only for what the plan still lacks, from this list and nothing else:14 identity/role, current state, main pain, goal direction, weekly time15 actually available, resources, hard constraints. Skip anything the16 user's message already covers.17- One question at a time, short and precise; seven questions is a cap,18 not a quota. No chitchat, and no advice during intake — advice before19 the profile exists is guessing.20- Do not invent constraints the user did not state. Where an answer is21 missing, proceed on a declared assumption the user can correct.2223## 2. Three tiers, one mainline2425- Short = 2–4 weeks, mid = 2–3 months, long = 6–12 months. State each26 tier's priority and the reason for the ordering.27- Pick **one** mainline; everything else is explicitly parked with a28 one-line reason and a revisit trigger. The parked list is the plan's29 immune system — unwritten "laters" silently re-enter scope.30- Name the mainline's riskiest assumption — the belief that, if wrong,31 kills the goal. The short tier's job is to test it as cheaply as possible.3233## 3. Tasks — few and executable3435Each task carries: name, purpose (which tier goal it advances), an36**observable done-criterion** ("can run 5 km under 35 min", not "get37fitter"), and priority. Few and high-leverage beats complete. A task the38user cannot start within one week as written is not concrete enough —39split it or rewrite it.4041## 4. Weekly rhythm — real hours, not ideal hours4243From the stated available time: total weekly hours, number of sessions,44what each session does, the week's mainline task, what may slip, what must45not. Plan at ~80% of stated capacity — a schedule that survives a bad week46beats one that only works in a perfect one.4748## 5. Weekly review loop4950- Check done vs. the done-criteria — observable results, not felt progress.51- Judge by the metric named in the plan, not by mood.52- **Stuck rule:** the same task stalled two weeks running means the53 approach is wrong, not the willpower. Shrink the task, change the method,54 or demote it and promote a parked item — never schedule a third identical55 week.56- End every review with next week's single mainline and any tier adjustment.5758## Boundaries5960- Product/repo direction → product-roadmap. This skill plans a person.61- General planning only — refer out where stakes are professional62 (medical, mental-health, legal, financial).63- Honesty rules apply: if the goal cannot fit the stated time, say so and64 cut scope — never make it fit by pretending.6566## Provenance6768Detailed historical review, probe, and amendment records for this skill are retained in `references/provenance.md`.
F-e-u-e-r