brigade vs core
Self-hosted crew of AI agents on an org chart sharing one long-term memory: delegation, mid-task model switching, 1,000+ app connectors, reachable from terminal, WhatsApp, Telegram or Slack. — 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 pitch a self-hosted personal AI that remembers and acts across your apps; core is one always-on agent with a memory graph, Brigade a crew sharing one memory.
| brigade | core | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 11k | 2.0k |
| Forks | 70 | 196 |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | NOASSERTION |
| Last activity | 2 days ago | 1 months ago |
| Topics | agents, orchestration | agents, memory |
| Curated connections | 3 | 12 |
brigade — the curator's take
For one owner who wants a personal multi-agent assistant they host themselves — reuses your Claude/ChatGPT/Copilot sign-in, approval-gated privileged actions, no telemetry. The README is heavy on vibes (the 'Bloody Benchmark' is a public tunnel, not a benchmark), so judge the code, not the copy. One lean agent on a $5 VPS? picobot is simpler. Company-scale fleets with budgets and governance? paperclip.
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.