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 lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/plugin install goal-modeWrote 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/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-review-request)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-review-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-review-request/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/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-review-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-review-request.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00249 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
goal-review-request scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Goal Review Request
Read-only inspector. Prints the reviewer list, evidence summary, and audit-instructions template for the cursor task (which must be in review-pending after /goal-mode:goal-achieve).
/goal-mode:goal-review-request
/goal-mode:goal-review-request --json
Workflow after running this:
- For each reviewer listed, dispatch via the Agent tool:
Agent({ subagent_type: "<reviewer>", description: "Review task <cursor-id>", prompt: "<audit-instructions template body>" }) - Collect each verdict text.
- Call
/goal-mode:goal-submit-verdict --agent <reviewer> --status GO|NOGO|REVISE --text "..."for each.
Run via Bash:
"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review-request.sh" <args>
Print the script output to the user.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 35 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A e085902ae5d4
goal-review-request is a command published in the GitHub repository lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 249 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit
Re-audit accepted ADRs against the codebase — verify each still holds, then amend, supersede, or deprecate the ones that don't.
code-review
Comprehensive security and quality review of code changes. Checks for vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and best practices.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
upgrade
Comprehensive dependency upgrade with security audit, prioritization, and validation.
rev
Invoke Code Reviewer for code quality, security, requirements validation, and best practices review.