cccc vs paperclip
Group-chat orchestration for coding agents: Claude Code, Codex, ChatGPT Web and others in one durable group with an append-only ledger, read receipts, and Web/IM/mobile ops. — 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.
paperclip runs heterogeneous agents as a 'company' control plane; CCCC is the lighter, coding-CLI-centric group with IM bridges instead of org charts.
| cccc | paperclip | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 1.2k | 81k |
| Forks | 110 | 15k |
| Language | Rust | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Last activity | yesterday | 2 days ago |
| Topics | orchestration, coding | agents, orchestration |
| Curated connections | 6 | 9 |
cccc — the curator's take
Reach for CCCC when the problem is *coordination* between several long-running agents - who owns a task, whether a message was actually delivered/read, what survives a daemon restart - and you want to supervise from a phone via Telegram/Mattermost. The ledger + delivery/read/reply facts are the real differentiator; most multiplexers just tile terminals. Not for a single agent in one repo (herdr or plain tmux is lighter), and not a workflow engine: it doesn't compile plans or DAGs, it routes messages between a foreman and peers. Rust binary, pip-installable, no broker/DB/Docker - but it is a daemon that owns state, so expect one more always-on process.
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.