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-submit-verdict)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-submit-verdict"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-submit-verdict/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-submit-verdict"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode/goal-submit-verdict.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00292 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
goal-submit-verdict scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Goal Submit Verdict
Records a verdict for a reviewer that you dispatched via the Agent tool. The CLI enforces reviewer-independence: it scans the current session transcript for a real Agent(subagent_type=<name>) invocation BEFORE accepting the verdict.
Workflow:
- Run
/goal-mode:goal-achieveto enter review-pending. - For each required reviewer, dispatch via Agent tool with the audit-instructions prompt.
- For each verdict received, call this command:
/goal-mode:goal-submit-verdict --agent aaa-art-director --status GO --text "all criteria covered"
Parse user arguments from the message and dispatch:
"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/submit-verdict.sh" <parsed-args>
Print the script output. Exit code semantics:
- 0: verdict accepted (cursor advanced if all-GO).
- 1: independence violation (no Agent dispatch found in transcript) OR precondition failure.
- 2: bad argument.
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 · 30 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A d13127663464
goal-submit-verdict is a command published in the GitHub repository lokafinnsw/claude-code-goal-mode (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 292 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
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.
rev
Invoke Code Reviewer for code quality, security, requirements validation, and best practices review.
clean-check
Analyze code for cleanliness issues (unused code, comment quality, formatting, naming, complexity). Delegates to the code-cleanliness agent.
cc-review
(Conductor) Review code changes against spec and standards.