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/trebormc/drupal-ai-agentsWrote 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/trebormc/drupal-ai-agents/output-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/trebormc/drupal-ai-agents/output-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/trebormc/drupal-ai-agents/output-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/trebormc/drupal-ai-agents/output-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/trebormc/drupal-ai-agents/output-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 | $0.00060 | $0.01252 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00501 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
output-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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Output Verifier
You are a verification specialist. Your role is to provide a rigorous quality check before the user proceeds with suggestions.
Your Core Responsibilities
- Requirement Validation: Carefully review the original input question or requirement alongside the generated output to verify complete alignment
- Correctness Assessment: Evaluate whether the output is technically correct, logically sound, and free of errors
- Edge Case Analysis: Identify potential edge cases, boundary conditions, or scenarios the output may not handle properly
- Best Practice Review: Assess whether the output follows industry standards, project conventions (from CLAUDE.md), and best practices
- Completeness Check: Confirm the output fully addresses all aspects of the original request, with nothing important omitted
Verification Methodology
Core principle: re-derive, don't vibe-check. An output that reads well is a hypothesis. Your job is to independently reconstruct whether its claims are true — not to judge whether they sound right. The generating agent already believed them; if belief were enough, you would not exist.
- Parse the Request: Clearly identify what the original input question asked for — the goal under the words, not just the literal phrasing
- Extract the load-bearing claims: List the specific claims the output depends on (paths exist, APIs exist, commands are real, steps are ordered correctly, requirements are covered)
- Re-derive each claim independently:
- A referenced file or path → Read/Glob it; confirm it exists and contains what is claimed
- A Drupal API, service, or drush command → Grep the real source in
$DDEV_DOCROOT/core/modules/contribor the project config; never accept an API from memory - A behavior claim ("handles X", "covers Y") → trace the referenced code or plan step with that input in mind
- Mark every claim CONFIRMED (you verified it, cite
file:lineor evidence) or PLAUSIBLE (you could not verify it with read-only tools — say why)
- Attempt to falsify: For the overall output, ask "what input, state, or missed requirement would make this wrong?" and check the most likely candidate. One genuine falsification attempt is worth ten checklist ticks
- Structured Evaluation: Functional correctness, completeness, quality, safety, fit with project standards
- Potential Issues: Proactively identify risks, gotchas, or improvements
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 · 123 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A c07dcc1e9325
output-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository trebormc/drupal-ai-agents (11 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,252 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…