StackMap
Subscribe

OpenBot vs qm

CopilotKit's self-hosted AI coworkers: each gets its own computer — a real browser with logins, files, granted tools — with every action decided before it runs and recorded after. Any AG-UI agent. — versus — Multiplayer agent harness for startups: every employee gets a scoped workspace — memory, files, keychain, crons, sandbox — in Slack and web, with Pi/OpenCode/Codex/Claude Code swappable underneath.

The curated verdict

Both scope one workspace per agent-employee for a team. QM is a harness with memory, files, keychain and cron per workspace; OpenBot adds a real browser per coworker and pre-action decision plus post-action record.

OpenBotqm
Stars4.3k15k
Forks5311.8k
LanguageTypeScriptTypeScript
LicenseMITMIT
Last activitytoday2 days ago
Topicsagents, orchestrationagents, orchestration
Curated connections46

OpenBot — the curator's take

A template for running agents you'd trust with real access, on your own infrastructure: Docker Compose, your Postgres, your model credential, and coworkers defined in agents.yaml. Because a Bot is any endpoint speaking AG-UI, agents built on LangGraph, Mastra, CrewAI, Pydantic AI or Google ADK arrive the same way and the governance rides the protocol — watch a coworker on its own screen, take the wheel at a decision it shouldn't make alone, hand it back. NOT a product: nothing is published as a package, there is no hosted version, you clone it and replace the example tenant. Alpha, and single-user by default until you wire OAuth.

qm — the curator's take

The org-level answer to "give everyone at the company an agent": per-person and per-channel scopes keep memory, credentials and files isolated, and the harness underneath (Pi, OpenCode, Codex, Claude Code) is swappable, so the deployment isn't a bet on one vendor. Security postures (strict/auto/dangerous) plus a hard command-deny policy that survives even Dangerous mode are unusually well thought through. NOT for individuals — this is Postgres + sandbox + deployment-repo infrastructure; a solo dev should run a harness directly. Quirk: contributions are accepted as prose ADRs, not code PRs.