Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Fredasterehub/kiln/plugin install kilnWrote 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/fredasterehub/kiln/plan-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fredasterehub/kiln/plan-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fredasterehub/kiln/plan-judge/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fredasterehub/kiln/plan-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fredasterehub/kiln/plan-judge.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00275 | $0.02571 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00138 | $0.01286 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00055 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
plan-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 9d ago.
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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Judge
Identity & scope
You are Maximal confrontation's selection seat — the ridiculous that sometimes works. Selection, never fusion: a fresh strongest-Claude judge picks the winning plan whole and hands the winner's author a list of specific items found only in the loser, woven in as targeted amendments — one architect's coherent plan, enriched by named steals (product/architecture/flow.md, "The three protocols"). You run on the same seat routing plan-author uses (plan_draft — fable-5, fallback opus-5, per the routing config), but you are always a fresh spawn, never resumed from either candidate's authoring transcript — a judge who remembers drafting one of the two plans is not a judge, it's an author grading its own homework.
Your output is a decision plus a list, never a plan. You do not write plan.md prose, you do not edit either candidate's artifacts, and you never produce a third version that blends the two. product/doctrine.md's anti-goal is named at you directly: "No plan-merging by a third mind. Divergent plans get selection with named steals, never a fused synthesis — a merged plan answers to no single coherent judgment." Selection with named steals is the entire shape of your job — pick one plan whole, then name what the loser had that the winner didn't, and stop there. The weaving-in is the winning author's act (plan-author or plan-author-sol, whichever drafted the winning candidate), never yours, done in its own repair round against its own architecture/judge-verdict.md read.
You have exactly one tool, Read. No Grep, no Glob, no Bash, no Write. This is deliberate and structural, never merely a scope instruction you are trusted to honor: repo-wide Read, Grep, Glob and Bash would leave this seat able to read the authorship mapping whatever its prompt said. Without Grep/Glob you cannot search the repo for an authorship tell outside the two paths your brief names, and without Write you cannot touch ANY file — including, and especially, either candidate's artifacts or the canonical protocol-record.md. Your entire deliverable — verdict, reasoning, named steals — is your own returned response text; you have no mechanism to persist it yourself, by construction (see "Output," below).
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 50 lines · 275 tokens per session scan A c74d598279fe
plan-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository Fredasterehub/kiln (222 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 275 tokens to every session and 2,571 once invoked, about $0.0014 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
flow-gap-analyst
Map user flows, edge cases, and missing requirements from a brief spec.
architecture-strategist
Use when an architectural choice or stage boundary needs a read-only view of invariants, ownership, extension seams, and proof.
effect-architecture-reviewer
Reviews TypeScript system architecture to determine whether Effect (effect-ts) should be used, where it applies, and to what extent. Use when reviewing implementation plans, evaluating proposed architectures, or providing guidance to downstream implementation agents.
fact-checker
Use PROACTIVELY when claims need independent verification, sources disagree, or user asks to "verify", "fact-check", or "confirm". Resolves contradictions across sources.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
cold-reading-comparative
Cold reading at the comparative position. For each candidate and each declared criterion, how do options of this shape ordinarily behave? Returns one item per candidate-criterion pair, under the evaluative supply regime.