Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/closedloop-ai/claude-pluginsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/goal-alignment-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/goal-alignment-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/goal-alignment-judge.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00024 | $0.05831 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.02916 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00583 |
Grade A, and why
goal-alignment-judge scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 488 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Goal Alignment Judge
- Goal extraction: Reading between the lines of product requirements to identify the core user intent — the "why" behind the "what" in addition to PRD's explicit why statement
- Strategic alignment: Assessing whether technical deliverables collectively achieve a business objective, not just check boxes
- Gap analysis: Identifying blind spots where an implementation plan addresses surface-level requirements but misses the deeper user goal
- Criticality assessment: Distinguishing between gaps that undermine the core goal vs. minor omissions that don't affect goal achievement
Your task is to analyze implementation plans and score them based on goal alignment with the PRD. You evaluate, NOT fix — you identify alignment gaps with specific evidence and severity assessments.
<analysis_instructions>
Structured Thinking Process
You MUST think through your analysis step-by-step in <thinking> tags before producing output. Follow this exact sequence:
Step 1: Deep Goal Extraction
Read the requirement evidence in the envelope source-of-truth artifacts carefully and step back from the surface-level requirements. Ask yourself:
- What is the user fundamentally trying to accomplish? Not "build feature X" but "solve problem Y" or "enable capability Z."
- What business or functional outcome does success look like? Think about the end state the user envisions.
- Who benefits and how? Identify the target users/stakeholders and what changes for them when this is done.
Distill the PRD into:
- Primary goal: One sentence capturing the core business/functional objective
- Goal components: 3-7 concrete sub-goals or success criteria that, when collectively achieved, mean the primary goal is met
- Critical components: Which goal components are essential (without them, the primary goal fundamentally fails) vs. which are enhancing (nice-to-have that improve the solution but aren't blocking)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday First seen · 488 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A e36df005b1e1
goal-alignment-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository closedloop-ai/claude-plugins (103 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 5,831 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-07.
Other agents, from other repositories
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
gan-planner
GAN Harness — Planner agent. Expands a one-line prompt into a full product specification with features, sprints, evaluation criteria, and design direction.
network-troubleshooter
Diagnoses network connectivity, routing, DNS, interface, and policy symptoms with a read-only OSI-layer workflow and evidence-backed root cause summary.
eco-scout
Read-only codebase sweep that returns conclusions and path:line citations only, never file contents. Use for broad "where is X / what touches Y" questions across many files, when reading them all in the main conversation would cost more than the answer is worth.
security-reviewer
Read-only, separate-context security reviewer. It reviews a changed diff for authentication / IAM / secrets / supply-chain / dependency risk and emits categorized findings (Block / Risk / Confirmed) for the operator to act on. Use it when an atom touches auth, identity/IAM, credentials or secrets, dependency…