CortexLit

CortexLit tool · Learning and attention · Runs offline · No account

Goal Audit

Test a goal against the things that make goals fail, and print what to fix before writing the plan.

← Back to the article · See the evidence

This tool gives general information based on the research summarised in Goals That Survive Contact With Real Life. It is not a medical device, does not diagnose, and does not replace advice from your clinician.

Your inputs

Share (opt-in)

Off by default. Anything here is built on your own device and nothing is uploaded. Pick exactly what goes on the card.

Preview of exactly what would be shared:










Free vs Plus




Free (this page)
  • six-check audit with what to fix
  • printable summary
  • text export and print
  • all citations and cautions


Plus (optional, one-time)
  • calendar (.ics) review reminders
  • unlimited share images
  • share card without the 'Made with CortexLit' footer


Checkout isn't live yet, so Plus is unlocked here with a local code. The check runs in your browser and can be bypassed; it is a placeholder for a real payment link.






Free tier: 1 share image per result.






Commercial disclosure: optional paid Plus tier; all evidence, cautions and the main result are free. No affiliate links, no sponsors.







What this is based on


Every output names at least one verified PubMed source. Identifiers were verified on 2026-10-11 in an earlier batch and carried over into this build; they were not re-queried here, and no retraction database was checked. Verification was at abstract level.


Wang 2021
Wang G, Wang Y, Gai X. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Mental Contrasting With Implementation Intentions on Goal Attainment. Front Psychol. 2021;12:565202. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.565202. PMID: 34054628.
PMID 34054628 · systematic review meta analysis · weight 1.0 · abstract level
Harkin 2016
Harkin B, Webb TL, Chang BP, et al. Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2016;142(2):198-229. doi:10.1037/bul0000025. PMID: 26479070.
PMID 26479070 · systematic review meta analysis · weight 1.0 · abstract level
Aeon 2021
Aeon B, Faber A, Panaccio A. Does time management work? A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245066. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245066. PMID: 33428644.
PMID 33428644 · observational meta analysis · weight 0.5 · abstract level
Cross 2019
Cross A, Sheffield D. Mental contrasting for health behaviour change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effects and moderator variables. Health Psychol Rev. 2019;13(2):209-225. doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1594332. PMID: 30879403.
PMID 30879403 · systematic review meta analysis · weight 1.0 · abstract level


Limits: This is an editorial checklist, not a validated measure. Passing the checks does not guarantee the goal will be achieved; the underlying effect sizes are medium at best.







Privacy


Inputs stay in this page's memory. There is no telemetry, no analytics call and no network request. Saving is opt-in, local to this browser, deletable, and unencrypted.