メニュー
Design a structured goal-setting protocol using SMART or implementation-intention frameworks for students. Use when launching units, projects, or developing student self-direction habits.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles --skill goal-setting-protocol-designerコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
AI(ChatGPT·Claude·Gemini 등)가 쓴 한글 텍스트를 "사람이 쓴 글처럼" 윤문해주는 오케스트레이터 스킬. 번역투·영어 인용 과다·기계적 병렬·관용구·피동태 남용·접속사 남발·리듬 균일성·이모지/불릿 과다 등 10대 카테고리 70개 AI 티 패턴을 탐지·분류해 내용은 한 글자도 건드리지 않고 문체·리듬·표현만 자연스러운 한국어로 재작성한다. shim의 route_hint(light|standard|heavy)로 경로를 정해 잘 쓴 글은 1콜, 표준은 2콜, 중증·장문만 3+콜(진단→겨냥 윤문→finalize)로 처리한다. 트리거 — "AI 티 없애줘", "AI 같은 글 자연스럽게", "GPT/ChatGPT 문체", "AI 번역투 고쳐", "사람이 쓴 것처럼 윤문", "AI 윤문", "ChatGPT 티 제거", "한글 AI 탐지·윤문", "AI 글 사람처럼", "번역투 제거", "영어 인용 많은 글 윤문", "AI 글 티 안 나게", "휴머나이저", "humanize Korean", "AI detector bypass 한글". 후속 작업 — "특정 카테고리만 다시", "윤문 강도 조정", "장르 바꿔서", "이 문단만", "2차 윤문" 도 모두 이 스킬. 단순 맞춤법·오탈자 교정은 직접 처리, 번역은 번역 스킬, 내용 추가·삭제를 동반한 재작성은 별도 집필 스킬.
가장 최근 윤문 결과를 2차로 다시 다듬는다 — 특정 카테고리·문단·강도 조정도 가능. humanize-korean strict 윤문(Phase B)을 기존 run_id에 재실행해 잔존 finding을 처리한다. 트리거 — "/humanize-redo".
AI가 쓴 한글 텍스트를 자연스럽게 윤문하는 진입 명령. humanize-korean 파이프라인을 Fast 모드(기본)로 실행하고 `--strict`면 정밀 3콜(진단→겨냥 윤문→finalize). 트리거 — "/humanize".
| name | goal-setting-protocol-designer |
| description | Design a structured goal-setting protocol using SMART or implementation-intention frameworks for students. Use when launching units, projects, or developing student self-direction habits. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | goal-setting-protocol-designer |
| skill_name | Goal-Setting Protocol Designer |
| domain | self-regulated-learning |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | strong |
| evidence_sources | ["Locke & Latham (1990) — A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance","Locke & Latham (2002) — Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation","Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) — Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment","Schunk (1990) — Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning","Morisano et al. (2010) — Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"learning_context","type":"string","description":"The unit, project, or task students are setting goals for"},{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age/year group and goal-setting experience level"},{"field":"timeframe","type":"string","description":"Duration over which goals will be pursued"}],"optional":[{"field":"goal_type","type":"string","description":"Process goals, outcome goals, or both"},{"field":"student_profiles","type":"array","description":"From context engine: self-efficacy levels, previous goal-setting data"},{"field":"success_criteria","type":"string","description":"From context engine: rubric or assessment criteria for the task"},{"field":"subject_area","type":"string","description":"Subject context"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"protocol","type":"object","description":"Step-by-step goal-setting protocol with teacher script and student templates"},{"field":"goal_examples","type":"array","description":"Modelled examples of weak vs. strong goals for this context"},{"field":"monitoring_checkpoints","type":"array","description":"Scheduled check-in points for goal progress review"},{"field":"student_template","type":"string","description":"Copy-pasteable goal-setting template for students"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["self-regulation-scaffold-generator","metacognitive-prompt-library","agency-scaffold-generator","self-efficacy-builder-sequence"] |
| teacher_time | 4 minutes |
| tags | ["goal-setting","motivation","self-regulation","planning","self-efficacy"] |
Generates a structured goal-setting protocol that guides students through setting specific, proximal, process-focused goals for a unit, project, or task — including teacher modelling scripts, weak-vs-strong goal examples, monitoring checkpoints, and a student template. The protocol is calibrated to developmental level and timeframe. AI is specifically valuable here because effective goal-setting requires understanding three overlapping bodies of research (Locke & Latham's goal-setting theory, Zimmerman's self-regulation model, Bandura's self-efficacy theory) and translating them into age-appropriate, task-specific scaffolds. Most school goal-setting exercises produce vague aspirations ("do my best," "get better at maths") that research shows have no motivational effect.
Locke & Latham (1990, 2002) established that goals improve performance through four mechanisms: directing attention, energising effort, increasing persistence, and promoting strategy development — but only when goals are specific (not vague), challenging (not easy), and accepted by the learner. Vague goals ("do your best") are no better than no goals at all. Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) demonstrated that self-set goals combined with self-monitoring produce stronger academic outcomes than externally assigned goals, because self-set goals enhance both self-efficacy and commitment. Schunk (1990) showed that proximal goals (short-term, achievable within days) are more effective than distal goals (long-term) for building self-efficacy in younger learners, because they provide more frequent success experiences. Morisano et al. (2010) found that a structured goal-setting and reflection intervention significantly improved academic performance in struggling university students. Critically, process goals ("I will use the PEEL structure in every paragraph") outperform outcome goals ("I will get an A") because students can control their process but not always their outcome — and process goals build transferable strategies.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in motivation and goal-setting research, specialising in Locke & Latham's (1990, 2002) goal-setting theory, Zimmerman's self-regulation framework, and Bandura's self-efficacy theory. You understand why most school goal-setting fails (goals are vague, distal, and outcome-focused) and how to design protocols that produce goals students can actually pursue.
Your task is to design a goal-setting protocol for the following:
**Learning context:** {{learning_context}}
**Student level:** {{student_level}}
**Timeframe:** {{timeframe}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Goal type:** {{goal_type}} — if not provided, default to process goals for younger/novice students and a mix of process and outcome goals for older/experienced students. Process goals are always the priority.
**Student profiles:** {{student_profiles}} — if not provided, design for a typical class at the stated experience level.
**Success criteria:** {{success_criteria}} — if provided, anchor goal options to specific criteria from the rubric. If not provided, generate appropriate criteria based on the learning context.
**Subject area:** {{subject_area}} — if not provided, infer from the learning context.
Apply these evidence-based principles:
1. **Specific over vague (Locke & Latham, 2002):** Every goal must be specific enough that both the student and teacher can unambiguously determine whether it has been met. "Improve my writing" fails. "Use at least two pieces of evidence in every analytical paragraph" passes.
2. **Process over outcome (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994):** Prioritise goals about what students will DO (strategies, behaviours, effort allocation) over what they will ACHIEVE (grades, scores). Students control their process; they don't fully control their outcomes. Process goals also build transferable strategies.
3. **Proximal over distal (Schunk, 1990):** For younger students especially, break long-term goals into weekly or even daily sub-goals. Proximal goals provide frequent success experiences that build self-efficacy. A Year 7 student with a term-long goal will lose track; a Year 7 student with a weekly goal can see progress.
4. **Challenging but achievable:** Goals that are too easy don't motivate. Goals that are too hard undermine self-efficacy. Pitch goals at the "stretch zone" — requires effort but is achievable with good strategy use. For mixed-ability classes, differentiate the challenge level of goals.
5. **Self-set with guidance (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994):** Students should choose their own goals from a structured set of options, not have goals imposed. Self-set goals produce stronger commitment. But unguided goal-setting produces vague goals — so provide a menu or framework.
6. **Built-in monitoring and revision:** Goals without check-in points decay. Build scheduled monitoring moments (at least weekly for multi-week timeframes) where students evaluate progress and adjust.
7. **Model weak vs. strong goals:** Students need to see the contrast between an ineffective goal and an effective one, with explicit explanation of why the strong goal is better.
Return your output in this exact format:
## Goal-Setting Protocol: [Learning Context]
**For:** [Student level]
**Timeframe:** [Duration]
### Step 1: Teacher Modelling
[A script showing the teacher modelling their own goal-setting process, including thinking aloud about why vague goals don't work]
### Step 2: Weak vs. Strong Goal Examples
[3 pairs of weak/strong goals specific to this learning context, with explanation of what makes each strong]
### Step 3: Goal-Setting Framework
[The framework students use to set their goals — structured choices, sentence stems, or menu options depending on developmental level]
### Step 4: Monitoring Checkpoints
[Scheduled check-in points with specific progress-review prompts]
### Step 5: Reflection and Revision
[End-of-cycle reflection protocol — evaluate goal attainment and set revised goals]
### Student Template
[Copy-pasteable goal-setting document for students]
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) all example goals are specific and measurable, (b) process goals outnumber outcome goals, (c) the protocol includes monitoring checkpoints, (d) goals are calibrated to be challenging but achievable for the stated level, (e) students choose their own goals within a structured framework rather than being assigned them, and (f) weak-vs-strong examples clearly explain what distinguishes them.
Scenario: Learning context: "Year 8 History — 5-week unit on the Industrial Revolution, culminating in an assessed source-analysis essay" / Student level: "Year 8, have done basic goal-setting before but goals are typically vague ('do well in the essay')" / Timeframe: "5 weeks"
For: Year 8, developing goal-setters Timeframe: 5 weeks (15 lessons)
"I'm going to set a goal for this unit too, and I want you to watch how I think about it.
My first instinct is to say: 'My goal is for you all to do well in the essay.' But let me think about why that's not a useful goal. Can I measure 'do well'? Not really — it means different things to different people. Can I control it? Not entirely — your marks depend on what you write, not just what I teach. Is it specific? No.
Let me try again. What do I actually want to improve this unit? Last unit, I noticed that when we did source analysis, lots of you described what the source said but didn't explain what it tells us — you weren't making inferences. So here's my goal:
'In every source analysis this unit, I will model how to make an inference — not just what the source says, but what it suggests about life during the Industrial Revolution. I will do at least one live example per lesson.'
That's specific — I can check it at the end of each lesson. It's about process — what I will DO, not what the result will be. And it's challenging — I sometimes rush past the modelling. That's my goal. Now you're going to set yours."
| Weak Goal | Strong Goal | Why the strong goal is better |
|---|---|---|
| "Do well in the essay" | "In my essay, I will explain what each source suggests about the Industrial Revolution, not just describe what it says — I will use the phrase 'This suggests that...' at least 3 times" | Specific (exactly what to do and how many times), process-focused (a strategy the student can practise), measurable (count the phrases) |
| "Learn about the Industrial Revolution" | "Each week, I will write a 3-sentence summary of the key cause and effect we studied, without looking at my notes, to test whether I actually remember it" | Process-focused (retrieval practice strategy), proximal (weekly), builds genuine understanding rather than assuming it will happen |
| "Try harder in History" | "I will complete the source analysis homework on time every week, and when I get feedback, I will re-do one paragraph using the teacher's comments before moving on" | Specific behaviours (on-time homework + responding to feedback), within the student's control, directly addresses a common obstacle |
Students choose one process goal and one knowledge goal from the menus below, or write their own following the same structure.
Process Goal Menu (choose or adapt one):
Knowledge Goal Menu (choose or adapt one):
| Week | Checkpoint | Prompt |
|---|---|---|
| End of Week 1 | In-class (3 min) | "Look at your process goal. Have you done the thing you said you'd do this week? If yes, tick. If no, what got in the way? What will you change this week to make it happen?" |
| End of Week 2 | Written (5 min) | "Give yourself a score: 1 (haven't started), 2 (tried once), 3 (doing it regularly), 4 (it's becoming automatic). For your knowledge goal: can you pass the test right now? Try writing your answer without notes and see." |
| End of Week 3 | Partner check (5 min) | "Explain your goals to a partner. Ask them: 'Have you seen me doing this in class?' Their observation matters because we're often bad judges of our own habits." |
| End of Week 4 | Teacher conference (2 min per student, during independent work) | Teacher asks: "Show me evidence you've worked toward your goal. What's one thing you've improved? What would you change for the essay?" |
Post-essay reflection (10 minutes):
MY GOALS — Industrial Revolution Unit
Name: _______________ Date: _______________
My process goal (what I will DO):
How often: _______________ How I'll know I've done it: _______________
My knowledge goal (what I'll KNOW or be able to DO):
How I'd prove it: _______________
Weekly check-ins:
| Week | Did I do my process goal this week? (Y/N) | Score (1–4) | What helped or got in the way? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 |
After the essay:
Goal-setting is motivating for students with moderate-to-high self-efficacy but can backfire for students with very low self-efficacy. A student who has repeatedly failed at a subject may experience structured goal-setting as another opportunity for documented failure. For these students, begin with extremely proximal, low-stakes goals (daily, easily achievable) to build early success experiences before increasing challenge. Schunk (1990) emphasises that goal difficulty must be calibrated to current self-efficacy.
Process goals require teachers to value process, not just outcomes. If the classroom culture only celebrates grades and rankings, students will set outcome goals regardless of the protocol because that's what's actually rewarded. The protocol works best in classrooms where effort, strategy use, and improvement are visibly valued.
Students need to see the goal-setting protocol used consistently across multiple units to develop the habit. A one-off goal-setting activity in one unit will not produce lasting self-regulation. The research shows that SRL interventions need sustained implementation — Dignath & Büttner (2008) found the strongest effects in interventions lasting 8+ weeks. Teachers should use a consistent goal-setting framework across the year, adapting the content but keeping the structure.