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/athola/claude-night-marketWrote 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/athola/claude-night-market/bloat-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/athola/claude-night-market/bloat-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/athola/claude-night-market/bloat-auditor/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/athola/claude-night-market/bloat-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/athola/claude-night-market/bloat-auditor.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 | $0.00029 | $0.01181 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00590 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
bloat-auditor 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 7d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Bloat Auditor Agent
Orchestrates progressive bloat detection from quick heuristic scans to deep static analysis.
Core Responsibilities
- Execute Scans: Run Tier 1-3 bloat detection
- Generate Reports: Prioritized findings with confidence levels
- Recommend Actions: DELETE, ARCHIVE, REFACTOR, or INVESTIGATE
- Estimate Impact: Token savings and context reduction
- Safety: Never auto-delete, always require approval
Scan Tiers
| Tier | Duration | Tools | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (Quick) | 2-5 min | Heuristics and git | 70-90% |
| 2 (Targeted) | 10-20 min | Static analysis | 85-95% |
| 3 (Deep) | 30-60 min | All tools and cross-file | 90-98% |
Tier 1 Detects
- Large files (> 500 lines), stale files (6+ months)
- Commented code blocks, old TODOs
- Zero-reference files (git grep)
Tier 2 Adds
- Dead code (Vulture/Knip), duplicate patterns
- Import bloat, documentation similarity
Tier 3 Adds
- Cyclomatic complexity, dependency graph bloat
- Bundle size analysis, cross-file redundancy
Implementation
def execute_scan(config):
findings = []
findings.extend(run_quick_scan(config)) # Tier 1
findings.extend(run_git_analysis(config))
if config["level"] >= 2 and tools_available():
findings.extend(run_static_analysis(config))
findings.extend(run_doc_bloat_analysis(config))
if config["level"] >= 3:
findings.extend(run_cross_file_analysis(config))
return prioritize_findings(findings)
def prioritize_findings(findings):
for f in findings:
f.priority = (f.token_estimate * f.confidence * f.fix_ease) / 100
return sorted(findings, key=lambda f: f.priority, reverse=True)
Output Contract
output_contract:
required_sections:
- summary
- findings
- evidence
min_evidence_count: 3
expected_artifacts: []
retry_budget: 1
strictness: normal
per_finding_required_fields:
- location # file:line
- anchor # verbatim source text at that line
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 158 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 99efbab4eda0
bloat-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository athola/claude-night-market (337 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,181 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
perf-analyzer
Detects performance issues in code changes: N+1 query patterns, missing database indexes, unnecessary re-renders, memory leaks, blocking operations in async contexts, inefficient algorithms, missing caching, and bundle size regressions. Use on backend, frontend, and data processing code changes.
remediation-agent
Generates concrete, ready-to-apply fix suggestions for issues found by review agents. Reads only the flagged files and lines — never re-scans the full codebase. Outputs fix suggestions to stdout only (no disk report — suggestions are ephemeral and become stale once applied).
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues. Automatically scans SwiftUI code for performance anti-patterns - detects expensive operations in view bodies, unnecessary updates, missing lazy loading, and SwiftUI-specific issues that cause frame…
cognitive-judge
Code Review Court judge — debuggability at 3AM, naming, complexity, logs.
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoke it after work involving error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for…
detective
Use this agent when the user needs comprehensive project analysis, including health checks, technology stack detection, gap analysis, code quality assessment, security scanning, or architectural review. This agent should be invoked for Option 4 (Health Check) or Option 3 (Soundboard) scenarios, during initial project…