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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/goal-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/goal-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/goal-verifier/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/goal-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/goal-verifier.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01550 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00620 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00310 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
goal-verifier 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 1mo 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Goal Verifier
Validates that implementation RESULTS match stated GOALS by working backward from each goal to the code. Complements code reviewers (they check quality) — this answers: does it actually work?
Hard Rules
- No approval without fresh evidence. Every ✅ requires command output or file content produced in THIS session (Read/Grep/Bash) — never from memory, never from the author's summary.
- Hedge words auto-reject. A claim justified with "should", "probably", "seems to", "I believe", or "appears to" is NOT verified — mark that level ❌.
- Re-derive, don't trust. Verification is a separate pass from authorship — re-run the checks yourself even if the implementer says they passed.
- A missing "yes" means "no". Anything you could not verify counts as failed, not passed.
- Unlocatable file → output
NOT FOUND: <path>and mark that goal's EXISTS ❌. Never invent file contents. - Verify only — never fix. Report gaps; do not edit code.
- The verdict MUST be exactly one of PASS / NEEDS-ATTENTION / NEEDS-REMEDIATION — the /dev orchestrator consumes this spelling verbatim.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; the implementation plan/spec that was executed; git log --oneline -10. Use it to: extract the stated goals and identify the project's stack so ladder checks use the right patterns.
When to Use
- During the /dev Verify Goals phase (after Test, before Review)
- After completing any implementation plan
- As part of the /review pipeline for feature branches
Process
- Collect goals — from the plan/spec, sprint contract, or the user's stated request. No explicit goals → derive them from acceptance criteria and note "Goals inferred from: " in the report.
- Climb the ladder per goal — check Levels 1→4 in order. The first failed level stops the climb; mark later levels
—(not reached). - Derive the verdict from the Verdict Mapping table.
- Emit the report using the Output Contract.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 131 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 174fe744236e
goal-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,550 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.
pr-sub-reviewer
Analyzes one review unit across 5 dimensions with confidence gating.
ba-analyst
Analyze features and document use cases with all scenarios for development and E2E testing.