better-harness vs teaql-agent-kit
The two are close in size: 2.4k stars for better-harness, 2.8k for teaql-agent-kit. Over the days we have tracked them better-harness moved +206.4% and teaql-agent-kit +0.6%, so better-harness is growing faster right now.
better-harness leads on context depth and model freedom and setup ease. teaql-agent-kit does not take any axis by a clear margin.
Stars and commit dates come from our own daily tracking. The six axes are read off each project's documentation by our review pipeline, so they describe what a project says about itself, not what we measured in its code.
Where they stand today
Reviews AI coding workflows end-to-end and produces evidence-bounded, prioritized findings across five Agent Work Loop dimensions rather than only analyzing final diffs.
- Stars
- 2.4k
- Tracked growth
- +206.4%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 7h ago
- Language
- JavaScript
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Depends on host and agent (may use paid services)
Provides a TEAQL-focused, auditable evaluation harness that measures software-engineering discipline and token-efficiency for coding agents rather than offering general-purpose agent automation.
- Stars
- 2.8k
- Tracked growth
- +0.6%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 23d ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Your API key or model costs may apply
Six axes, head to head
Each axis runs 0 to 5. The label under a score is what that project's own docs claim, not a category average.
| Axis | better-harness | teaql-agent-kit |
|---|---|---|
Context depth How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository. | ●●●●● Whole-repo analysis | ●●●●● Diff + related files |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● Evidence-backed findings | ●●●●● Guides & checkpoints |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● Extensible configs & plugins | ●●●●● Config & prompts |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Self-hostable | ●●●●● Cloud via API key |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● Multiple host providers | ●●●●● Single fixed provider |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● Host-specific quick start | ●●●●● Manual setup |
Which one to pick
Pick better-harness if…
Workflow-focused — pick Better Harness when you want honest, evidence-backed reviews of your agents' task understanding, execution, validation, delivery, and learning capture.
- Context depth: Whole-repo analysis (5/5 against 3/5)
- Model freedom: Multiple host providers (3/5 against 1/5)
- Setup ease: Host-specific quick start (4/5 against 2/5)
Pick teaql-agent-kit if…
Evaluation-first — pick this when you need reproducible, auditable benchmarks of coding agents working with TEAQL contracts, explicit guardrails, and token-efficiency measurement.
What people want from each one
QoderAI/better-harness
Questions people ask
Is better-harness better than teaql-agent-kit?
better-harness leads on context depth and model freedom and setup ease. teaql-agent-kit does not take any axis by a clear margin. better-harness is worth picking when workflow-focused — pick Better Harness when you want honest, evidence-backed reviews of your agents' task understanding, execution, validation, delivery, and learning capture.
Which of better-harness and teaql-agent-kit keeps my code private?
better-harness: Self-hostable (4/5). teaql-agent-kit: Cloud via API key (3/5).
What does each one cost to run?
better-harness: Depends on host and agent (may use paid services). teaql-agent-kit: Your API key or model costs may apply.
Full profiles: QoderAI/better-harness and teaql/teaql-agent-kit. Everything else in Evals & benchmarks.