alook vs paperclip
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 — Open-source control plane for running fleets of heterogeneous AI agents as a "company" — bring your own agent, assign goals, org charts, budgets, governance, and an audited ticket system.
Same job — run your agents as a 'company' with an org chart and task system. paperclip bets on governance (budgets, audits, tickets) for heterogeneous fleets; alook bets on email-native simplicity for solo builders running coding agents.
| alook | paperclip | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 944 | 74k |
| Forks | 144 | 14k |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Last activity | yesterday | yesterday |
| Topics | coding, orchestration | agents, orchestration |
| Curated connections | 9 | 7 |
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.
paperclip — the curator's take
Reach for Paperclip when you run many agents across providers 24/7 and need a boss layer — budgets that hard-stop, org charts, goal alignment, audit trail, mobile monitoring. Sweet spot: "20 Claude Code tabs, lost track of who does what." NOT the tool to build an agent (it orchestrates ones you already have), and overkill for a single agent or one linear pipeline. It's a control plane, not a framework.