alook vs core
Self-hosted collaboration layer that turns local coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode) into an always-on "AI company" — per-agent email, org chart, kanban, shared memory. — versus — Self-hosted, always-on "personal AI OS": watches your apps, keeps a persistent memory graph, and acts autonomously within guardrails — a product, not a library for building agents.
Both are self-hosted, always-on 'AI that works for you while you sleep' products with persistent memory — core shapes it as one personal AI OS watching your apps; alook shapes it as a team of role-assigned coding agents.
| alook | core | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 944 | 1.9k |
| Forks | 144 | 181 |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | NOASSERTION |
| Last activity | yesterday | yesterday |
| Topics | coding, orchestration | agents, memory |
| Curated connections | 9 | 6 |
alook — the curator's take
Pick alook when you already live in Claude Code or Codex and want those agents running as a persistent little team — email in and out, a kanban they work through, schedules, memory that compounds — without writing a line of orchestration code. It's a product, not a framework: BYO agent, you're the CEO. NOT for building agents programmatically (that's LangGraph/CrewAI territory), and if you need budgets, governance, and audit over a heterogeneous fleet, paperclip is the heavier, control-plane take on the same idea. Young project — expect sharp edges and a moving roadmap.
core — the curator's take
Reach for CORE when you want an event-driven, self-hosted personal assistant that notices things on its own, remembers across sessions via a memory graph, and acts across your apps with per-action approval gates. NOT the pick if you want a framework to embed agents inside your own software (it's a product/OS, not a toolkit), nor if you need to run a multi-agent team/company with org charts and budgets — that's paperclip's lane.