StackMap
Subscribe

browser-harness-js vs stealth-browser-mcp

browser-use's thinnest LLM-to-Chrome bridge: all 652 CDP methods as typed JS calls over one WebSocket — no click() helpers, no rails; the protocol is the API. — versus — MCP server for undetectable browser automation: real Chrome via nodriver + CDP, Cloudflare/anti-bot bypass, AI-written network hooks — agents browse where Playwright gets blocked.

The curated verdict

Both CDP-level browser control for agents: stealth-browser-mcp specializes in anti-bot evasion via nodriver; the harness is the thinnest generic typed bridge.

browser-harness-jsstealth-browser-mcp
Stars4721.5k
Forks32231
LanguageTypeScriptPython
LicenseMITMIT
Last activity2 months ago1 months ago
Topicswebweb
Curated connections23

browser-harness-js — the curator's take

The bitter-lesson answer to browser frameworks, from the browser-use team themselves: no helpers — the agent writes raw CDP calls, with types as the docs. Brilliant for capable models on weird pages; frustrating for weak models that need click() rails — that's what browser-use itself is for.

stealth-browser-mcp — the curator's take

For the pages where standard automation dies at the Cloudflare wall: real Chrome instances driven through nodriver + CDP, exposed to any MCP client, with network-hook tooling Playwright MCPs don't have. When your agent legitimately needs a protected page (your own accounts, paywalled services you subscribe to), this is the tool that actually works. The obvious caution IS the caution: 'bypasses anti-bot systems' means you're overriding sites' stated wishes — check ToS and law before pointing it anywhere you don't own; expect the arms race to break it periodically, and audit what its hooks can capture (credentials pass through).