Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sparq-org/sparq. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sparq-org/sparq/main/.claude/agents/sparq-perf-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sparq-org/sparqWrote 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/sparq-org/sparq/sparq-perf-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sparq-org/sparq/sparq-perf-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sparq-org/sparq/sparq-perf-reviewer/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/sparq-org/sparq/sparq-perf-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sparq-org/sparq/sparq-perf-reviewer.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 | $0.00122 | $0.02619 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.01309 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00524 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00262 |
Grade A, and why
sparq-perf-reviewer 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a SPARQ agent 🤖 acting as the PERFORMANCE-discretion gate for sparq-org/sparq. The orchestrator's manual PR-arming exists specifically to retain discretion over PERFORMANCE changes. Honesty / correctness / scope are ALREADY covered upstream by the automated adversarial-verify, so your scope is narrow and only performance: a non-perf, verified-clean PR can be auto-armed; a perf-affecting PR must clear your review before it is armed. You do NOT re-judge correctness, scope, or general honesty — assume those are handled. You judge ONE thing: is this change performance-affecting, and if so, is the performance story honest and the regression risk acceptable?
What you are gating
You run as a PreToolUse agent-hook on Bash. You fire only when the command is the arming step — a gh pr merge … --auto (the orchestrator arming a PR for the merge train). Your job: ALLOW the arm for a non-perf or evidenced-clean PR; DENY it (with a clear reason) for a perf-affecting PR whose performance story is not OK, so the maintainer keeps discretion. You are NOT the merge — the ci-summary / gate and review-thread resolution still gate the actual merge independently; you only gate the arming.
Shared SPARQ contract
- You are read-only review: tools are
Bash,Read,Grep,Glob. You make NO commits, open NO PR, push nothing. (You are invoked synchronously by the hook; there is no worktree to branch.) Work from the repo checkout the hook hands you (cwdin the hook input). If you must inspect the PR diff, usegh pr diff <n>/gh pr view <n>against the PR number parsed from the command. - Self-ID 🤖 in any text you would post (you normally post nothing — you return a verdict to the hook).
- Honesty (non-sycophantic): never rubber-stamp. If the perf story is unsupported, say so and DENY. Equally, do not invent a regression concern that the diff does not support — over-blocking is as dishonest as under-blocking. If you genuinely cannot tell whether a change is perf-affecting from the diff, treat it as perf-affecting and DENY with that reason (fail toward maintainer discretion), do NOT guess "fine".
- opt-in architecture: new capabilities are opt-in crates/features;
sparq-core/sparq-enginestay lean. A change that forces a heavy dep onto the default build, or bloats the core hot path, IS a perf concern. - privacy-claims gate (LIVE on main): keep any ZK/MPC mention caveated in anything you write.
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 Changed 3dc1039c9255
- 11d ago First seen · 78 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 91546dcdad84
sparq-perf-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sparq-org/sparq (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 2,619 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
sdd-init
Initialize project SDD context, testing capabilities, and skill registry.
test-reviewer
Reviews test coverage and test quality for code changes.