Add SRE Agents

[nishantmodak]

https://github.com/last9/awesome-sre-agents

**
AI agents for site reliability engineering is a fast-growing category
(incident response, on-call automation, root-cause analysis). No existing
entry covers it — the current SRE list (dastergon/awesome-sre) is about SRE
practices generally, not the emerging agent tooling.**

By submitting this pull request I confirm I've read and complied with the below requirements 🖖

Please read it multiple times. I spent a lot of time on these guidelines and most people miss a lot.

Requirements for your pull request

• Fully AI-generated pull requests are not accepted.
• Don't open a Draft / WIP pull request while you work on the guidelines. A pull request should be 100% ready and should adhere to all the guidelines when you open it. Instead use #2242 for incubation visibility.
• Don't waste my time. Do a good job, adhere to all the guidelines, and be responsive.
• You have to review at least 4 other open pull requests.
  Try to prioritize unreviewed PRs, but you can also add more comments to reviewed PRs. Go through the below list when reviewing. This requirement is meant to help make the Awesome project self-sustaining. Comment here which PRs you reviewed. You're expected to put a good effort into this and to be thorough. Look at previous PR reviews for inspiration. Just commenting “looks good” or simply marking the pull request as approved does not count! You have to actually point out mistakes or improvement suggestions. Comments pointing out lint violation are allowed, but does not count as a review.
• You have read and understood the instructions for creating a list.
• This pull request has a title in the format Add Name of List. It should not contain the word Awesome.
  • ✅ Add Swift
  • ✅ Add Software Architecture
  • ❌ Update readme.md
  • ❌ Add Awesome Swift
  • ❌ Add swift
  • ❌ add Swift
  • ❌ Adding Swift
  • ❌ Added Swift
• Your entry here should include a short description of the project/theme of the list. It should not describe the list itself. The first character should be uppercase and the description should end in a dot. It should be an objective description and not a tagline or marketing blurb. It should not contain the name of the list.
  • ✅ - [iOS](…) - Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ - [Framer](…) - Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ - [iOS](…) - Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ - [Framer](…)
  • ❌ - [Framer](…) - prototyping interactive UI designs
• Your entry should be added at the bottom of the appropriate category.
• The title of your entry should be title-cased and the URL to your list should end in #readme.
  • Example: - [Software Architecture](https://github.com/simskij/awesome-software-architecture#readme) - The discipline of designing and building software.
• No blockchain-related lists.
• The suggested Awesome list complies with the below requirements.

Requirements for your Awesome list

• Has been around for at least 30 days.
  That means 30 days from either the first real commit or when it was open-sourced. Whatever is most recent.
• Is not AI-generated.
• Run awesome-lint on your list and fix the reported issues. If there are false-positives or things that cannot/shouldn't be fixed, please report it.
• The default branch should be named main, not master.
• Includes a succinct description of the project/theme at the top of the readme. (Example)
  • ✅ Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ Awesome Framer packages and tools.
• It's the result of hard work and the best I could possibly produce.
  If you have not put in considerable effort into your list, your pull request will be immediately closed.
• The repo name of your list should be in lowercase slug format: awesome-name-of-list.
  • ✅ awesome-swift
  • ✅ awesome-web-typography
  • ❌ awesome-Swift
  • ❌ AwesomeWebTypography
• The heading title of your list should be in title case format: # Awesome Name of List.
  • ✅ # Awesome Swift
  • ✅ # Awesome Web Typography
  • ❌ # awesome-swift
  • ❌ # AwesomeSwift
• Non-generated Markdown file in a GitHub repo.
• The repo should have awesome-list & awesome as GitHub topics. I encourage you to add more relevant topics.
• Not a duplicate. Please search for existing submissions.
• Only has awesome items. Awesome lists are curations of the best, not everything.
• Does not contain items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs. If you really need to include such items, they should be in a separate Markdown file.
• Includes a project logo/illustration whenever possible.
  • Either centered, fullwidth, or placed at the top-right of the readme. (Example)
  • The image should link to the project website or any relevant website.
  • The image should be high-DPI. Set it to a maximum of half the width of the original image.
  • Don't include both a title saying Awesome X and a logo with Awesome X. You can put the header image in a # (Markdown header) or <h1>.
• Entries have a description, unless the title is descriptive enough by itself. It rarely is though.
• Includes the Awesome badge.
  • Should be placed on the right side of the readme heading.
    • Can be placed centered if the list has a centered graphics header.
  • Should link back to this list.
• Has a Table of Contents section.
  • Should be named Contents, not Table of Contents.
  • Should be the first section in the list.
  • Should only have one level of nested lists, preferably none.
  • Must not feature Contributing or Footnotes sections.
• Has an appropriate license.
  • We strongly recommend the CC0 license, but any Creative Commons license will work.
    • Tip: You can quickly add it to your repo by going to this URL: https://github.com/<user>/<repo>/community/license/new?branch=main&template=cc0-1.0 (replace <user> and <repo> accordingly).
  • A code license like MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc, is not acceptable. Neither are WTFPL and Unlicense.
  • Place a file named license or LICENSE in the repo root with the license text.
  • Do not add the license name, text, or a Licence section to the readme. GitHub already shows the license name and link to the full text at the top of the repo.
  • To verify that you've read all the guidelines, please comment on your pull request with just the word unicorn.
• Has contribution guidelines.
  • The file should be named contributing.md. The casing is up to you.
  • It can optionally be linked from the readme in a dedicated section titled Contributing, positioned at the top or bottom of the main content.
  • The section should not appear in the Table of Contents.
• All non-important but necessary content (like extra copyright notices, hyperlinks to sources, pointers to expansive content, etc) should be grouped in a Footnotes section at the bottom of the readme. The section should not be present in the Table of Contents.
• Has consistent formatting and proper spelling/grammar.
  • The link and description are separated by a dash.
    Example: - [AVA](…) - JavaScript test runner.
  • The description starts with an uppercase character and ends with a period.
  • Consistent and correct naming. For example, Node.js, not NodeJS or node.js.
• Does not use hard-wrapping.
• Does not include a CI (e.g. GitHub Actions) badge.
  You can still use a CI for linting, but the badge has no value in the readme.
• Does not include an Inspired by awesome-foo or Inspired by the Awesome project kinda link at the top of the readme. The Awesome badge is enough.

Go to the top and read it again.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3b282c2455

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[sindresorhus]

Thanks for making an Awesome list! 🙌

It looks like you didn't read the guidelines closely enough. I noticed multiple things that are not followed. Try going through the list point for point to ensure you follow it. I spent a lot of time creating the guidelines so I wouldn't have to comment on common mistakes, and rather spend my time improving Awesome.

[ZoranPandovski]

It looks like you are missing the reviews. Please make sure you foolow the guidelenes You have to review at least 4 other PRs

[hwajongpark]

1. The entry describes the list's contents, not the topic. "AI agents that automate site reliability engineering..." is the exact pattern the guidelines flag (the iOS ❌ example). Something like "Site reliability engineering for keeping production systems reliable" fits better. Same string is reused as the repo description.

2. A few entries aren't SRE agents: KubeStellar Console ("UI console for multi-cluster Kubernetes"), k8s-GPT ("CLI tool that scans clusters"), Not Human Search ("search index for non-human web activity"). Worth tightening to on-topic items.

3. The "review at least 4 other open PRs" box is unchecked with no reviewed-PR list in the body, and that has to be met before merge.

[zlc000190]

The category fit makes sense, but I think this PR still needs checklist cleanup before it’s really 'ready': the template section about reviewing 4 other open PRs is still unchecked, and that repo-level requirement is called out pretty strongly in . I’d suggest completing that requirement (and linking the reviewed PRs) before expecting maintainers to spend time on the list itself.

[velo4705]

Looks clear on the README side, but I noticed some archived repos or broken links in your list.

Hyperlink	What I see
https://github.com/prefect-archive/ControlFlow	A repository that is been archived since March 2026.
https://holmesgpt.ai	Parked domain.
https://github.com/incidentfox/incidentfox	A repository that is been archived since June 2026.
https://github.com/ingero-io/ingero	404 Not found.

The rule is: Does not contain items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs. If you really need to include such items, they should be in a separate Markdown file.
Also for Broken links, it should either be replaced with the correct URL or remove the entry that is having the broken link.

[dvershinin]

Two issues not yet raised in this thread:

1. Repo name checkbox is mis-checked. The checklist has - [ ] The repo name of your list should be in lowercase slug format left unchecked (implying non-compliance), but awesome-sre-agents is a valid lowercase slug. That box should be checked — leaving it unchecked signals an unresolved problem to maintainers reviewing the checklist at a glance.

2. Entry placement is off. The diff inserts the entry after "Copilot Agents" in what appears to be a general tools/AI area, but the readme has no section heading visible in the diff context. sindresorhus/awesome requires entries to go at the bottom of the appropriate category — if this is landing in an AI/Tools grouping that isn't the right fit for SRE, it needs to move. Worth double-checking the section heading above line 891 to confirm placement is intentional.

[rodchalski]

Review of awesome-sre-agents

A few issues I noticed while going through this against the submission requirements:

1. Unchecked checkbox on repo name format — the PR has the "repo name in lowercase slug format" requirement unchecked (- [ ]). The repo name awesome-sre-agents does appear to be lowercase slug format, so this looks like an inadvertent omission rather than a real problem — but it should be checked off.

2. Referral/tracking token in a URL — the KnoxOps entry links to https://knoxops.app/?invite_token=GITHUB26. Awesome list entries shouldn't include marketing referral tokens in URLs. This should link to the canonical homepage without the tracking parameter.

3. Nested heading inside a section — the ### Archived subheading within ## SRE Agents creates two levels of nested structure. The guidelines say the Contents should have at most one level, and the Archived items feel like they should be in a separate file (archived.md) per the guidelines ("items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs... should be in a separate Markdown file"). IncidentFox is already archived on GitHub — moving it out keeps the main list clean.

4. The succinct description — the README description "AI agents that automate site reliability engineering and DevOps operations." is fine, but it's placed as plain text rather than inside a > blockquote. This is a style inconsistency — the awesome-lint tool may or may not catch it, but looking at other accepted lists, the description is usually in a blockquote.

[Egv2]

solid list, well curated. a few notes:

1. the description in the PR says "DevOps" with a capital O. other entries in the awesome list use lowercase for compound terms like this. consider changing to "devops" for consistency.

2. you have an "Archived" section at the bottom with one entry (IncidentFox). awesome lists typically don't have archived sections since the list is supposed to be actively maintained. consider removing that section or moving archived entries to a separate file.

3. last9.io is listed as the project owner, and some entries might be competitors. just make sure the list stays vendor-neutral and isn't seen as promoting your own product over others.

looks good otherwise :)