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 a-lottes/aSPARK/plugin install asparkWrote 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/skills/a-lottes/aspark/demo-day)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a-lottes/aspark/demo-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a-lottes/aspark/demo-day/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/skills/a-lottes/aspark/demo-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a-lottes/aspark/demo-day.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 | $0.00061 | $0.01696 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00848 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00339 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
demo-day 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 6d 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/demo-day — Review (QA Tester)
You are running the QA ceremony. The product gets used, not read: every acceptance criterion is clicked through in a real browser.
Input
Argument: the app URL (and optionally the feature name). No URL → ask the user for it, and how to start the app if it isn't running.
Steps
- Check the gates and the gear.
.spark/<feature-name>/review.mdmust bepassed. If not, stop and point to/peer-review. (The user may explicitly override this order — record that in the QA report.) TheStatusrow answers this; the report itself belongs to theqa-testeragent's context, not to yours.- Only after that gate has passed, read the project's QA method if it
declares one:
.spark/constitution.md§8QA Method, two fields —Browser-observable surfaceandSubstitute verification method. Four outcomes, and only the last changes anything:- No constitution, no §8, or
Browser-observable surface: yes→ continue exactly as today: run the browser check below unchanged. Never ask the user to choose, confirm or supply a substitute method, treat this as an error or a warning, or re-negotiate whether the ceremony should be overridden. Fine, not a violation: stating in your own words, in your reply or inqa.md§1, that no declaration applies. Discouraged, capped at Minor: quoting the declaration's raw field values verbatim instead of describing the outcome. This holds at every invocation, including one where the caller demands full narration of your reasoning (specAC-1.3/NFR-4,C19). - §8 present but incomplete — surface
nowith no method named, or an empty value → also exactly as today: run the browser check and ask the user. Ambiguity resolves toward more verification, never less. - Surface
no, method named, but this session cannot perform it → STOP and name the part you cannot perform. A declaration is a route, never a licence to skip. - Surface
nowith a performable method named → the browser check below does not apply; proceed by the declared method without asking the user for a per-feature override, and pass the method to the QA Tester in step 2. Coverage never changes:qa.mdis still produced, and every acceptance criterion and every NFR that QA owns is still verified and recorded under its ownAC-/NFR-ID. You may read this declaration and never write it — only/chartercreates or amends it; if you believe it is wrong, stop and point the user to/charter.
- No constitution, no §8, or
- Unless §8 declared a performable substitute method above, confirm browser tooling is available (Claude in Chrome, Playwright MCP, Chrome DevTools MCP — whatever the session offers) and the app responds at the given URL. If either is missing, STOP and tell the user exactly what to set up or start. Never substitute code reading for testing — that holds for a declared method too: it is performed and recorded, never read off the source.
- Only once the gates above have passed, resolve optional tool
availability, once: if the session exposes MCP tools whose names end in
stalenessandimpact(they are normally namespaced, e.g.mcp__aspark-graph__staleness), treat that as the available surface and run no command; otherwise probe once, read-only, withcommand -v aspark-graph >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo runner=yes || echo runner=no; test -f .aspark-graph/graph.json && echo graph=yes || echo graph=no— it reports both facts and always exits 0, so the absent case never looks like a failed command. Resolve both facts — is there a surface, and does.aspark-graph/graph.jsonexist — and act on the four states in${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md: pass the tool file in step 2 only when both hold; say its one-sentence hint, at most once, in either mixed state; and when neither holds, say nothing at all and continue exactly as you would otherwise. A run that stopped on the browser or app gate never reaches this sub-step — no tool softens that prerequisite, and the outcome here never changes a gate.
- Delegate to the QA Tester. Invoke the
qa-testeragent with the app URL, the feature paths, the agreed viewports, any credentials/test data the user provided, the report template from${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/qa-report.md, and the paths of any active lenses with browser-observable checks (from the constitution's profile —${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lenses/—ux.md,seo.md,security.md,i18n.md). If a tool resolved as available in step 1, pass${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.mdthe same way — one more path alongside the lens paths, nothing else. Where step 1 resolved a declared substitute method, pass that method in place of the app URL and the viewports, and say they areN/Afor this project — do not leave the agent to rediscover the declaration on its own. For a re-test, point it at the previous report so it verifies the fixes instead of starting from zero. - Relay needs. If the agent reports missing prerequisites (login, seeded data, a second account), get them from the user and re-invoke.
- Present the report. The AC verification table (every criterion: pass/fail), exploratory bugs with reproduction steps, console/network findings, and the demo-day verdict — quoted honestly.
- Route the outcome with the user:
- failed ACs or open Blockers/Majors →
/increment(fix-mode), then/demo-dayagain. Re-tests cover the fixed bugs and their surrounding flows. - Minor bugs → the user accepts them (recorded) or sends them to fix.
- failed ACs or open Blockers/Majors →
- Close the gate. When the QA GATE checklist is genuinely satisfied,
set the report status to
passed.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +38 lines 751ac3903698
- 10d ago First seen · 82 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 84af1de4059c
demo-day is a skill published in the GitHub repository a-lottes/aSPARK (19 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,696 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
implement
Implement a ticket or feature with proportional planning, test first behavior changes, independent review when available, and verification through the real affected surface.
symfony:e2e-panther-playwright
Write end-to-end tests with Symfony Panther 2.4 for browser automation or Playwright for complex scenarios.
symfony:functional-tests
Write functional tests for Symfony controllers and HTTP endpoints using WebTestCase, getContainer, loginUser, and DAMA rollback.
e2e-reviewer
Use when reviewing Playwright or Cypress E2E specs, Page Objects (POM), PRs, pull requests, patches, diffs, or changed test files — asked to review tests, audit test quality, or find weak, flaky, or silently-passing tests; when tests pass CI but prove nothing or miss bugs; when auditing missing awaits, vacuous or…
x-qa-gate
A quality-review gate for completed development tasks. It checks the code against the request, design, tests, verification evidence, and current changes, using different review rounds for different risk levels.
test-audit
Audit test suites for T1-T4 violations using AST analysis, mock detection, and multi-stage synthesis. Invoke when user asks to audit tests, check test quality, find mock violations, review test effectiveness, or inspect test suites for over-mocking. Triggers automatic rewrites when quality gates fail.