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 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00472 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (343 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,181 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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 — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
evolve-type-safety-audit
Type-design skeptic for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build — on refactor cycles and on any large diff — to hunt type escape hatches (any / interface{} / unchecked casts / unsafe assertions) and boundaries with no encoded invariant, and BLOCKS when a weak type lets through…
wizard
Deep review, hard debugging, and "which approach" calls. Read-only. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for the wizard, when a party member calls it mid-encounter, or after two failed attempts at the same problem — not as a routine second opinion on ordinary work.