alook vs openrig
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 — Define a team of Claude Code, Codex and Pi agents in YAML and boot it with one command: persistent tmux-backed seats with roles, shared context and owned work, steered via a lead agent.
Same job: turn local Claude Code/Codex sessions into an always-on agent organization you direct through a lead.
| alook | openrig | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 1.5k | 8.7k |
| Forks | 217 | 722 |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Last activity | yesterday | yesterday |
| Topics | coding, orchestration | orchestration, coding, agents |
| Curated connections | 11 | 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.
openrig — the curator's take
Use it when you already live in Claude Code/Codex and want a standing team — lead agent, specialists, stable addresses — rather than one-off sessions. Skip it if you want a hosted platform or Windows-native setup (tmux, macOS/Linux/WSL2 only), and read the permissions section first: the kernel operator runs with broad, prompt-free access by default.