forkd vs harnessrouter
The two are close in size: 3.3k stars for forkd, 3.8k for harnessrouter. Over the days we have tracked them forkd moved +22.3% and harnessrouter +569.1%, so harnessrouter is growing faster right now.
harnessrouter leads on context depth and model freedom. forkd 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
Provides near-fork(2) microVM spawn and live BRANCHing via snapshot copy-on-write, enabling KVM-isolated agent fan-out with millisecond-scale latency.
- Stars
- 3.3k
- Tracked growth
- +22.3%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 1h ago
- Language
- Rust
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Cost to run
- Free, self-hosted
A single-container, self-hosted runtime implementing the Unified Harness Protocol that runs multiple agent harnesses locally with your keys and no telemetry.
- Stars
- 3.8k
- Tracked growth
- +569.1%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 3h ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Cost to run
- Your API key; provider billing applies
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 | forkd | harnessrouter |
|---|---|---|
Context depth How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository. | ●●●●● Diff only | ●●●●● Whole-repo analysis |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● None | ●●●●● Minimal controls |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● CLI / REST options | ●●●●● Integration & policies |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Fully local | ●●●●● Self-hosted (provider keys) |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● No model support | ●●●●● Bring-your-own-key |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● Kernel + root req | ●●●●● Docker + API key |
Which one to pick
Pick forkd if…
Ultra-fast fan-out — pick forkd when you need hundreds of warmed, KVM-isolated microVM sandboxes and the ability to snapshot/branch a running agent mid-thought.
Pick harnessrouter if…
Privacy-first — a one-container, self-hosted agent runtime that keeps keys and data on your infrastructure while supporting many provider backends.
- Context depth: Whole-repo analysis (5/5 against 1/5)
- Model freedom: Bring-your-own-key (5/5 against 1/5)
What people want from each one
deeplethe/forkd
Hacker News: Forkd: Fork() for AI Agent MicroVMs drew 2 points and 0 comments.
HarnessRouter/harnessrouter
Questions people ask
Is forkd better than harnessrouter?
harnessrouter leads on context depth and model freedom. forkd does not take any axis by a clear margin. forkd is worth picking when ultra-fast fan-out — pick forkd when you need hundreds of warmed, KVM-isolated microVM sandboxes and the ability to snapshot/branch a running agent mid-thought.
Which of forkd and harnessrouter keeps my code private?
forkd: Fully local (5/5). harnessrouter: Self-hosted (provider keys) (4/5).
What does each one cost to run?
forkd: Free, self-hosted. harnessrouter: Your API key; provider billing applies.
Full profiles: deeplethe/forkd and HarnessRouter/harnessrouter. Everything else in Runtimes & sandboxes.