harnessrouter vs nanoclaw
nanoclaw is much bigger: 30.8k stars against 2.4k. Over the days we have tracked them harnessrouter moved +321.5% and nanoclaw +3%, so harnessrouter is growing faster right now.
They split the axes: harnessrouter leads on context depth, nanoclaw on setup ease.
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
A single-container, self-hosted runtime implementing the Unified Harness Protocol that runs multiple agent harnesses locally with your keys and no telemetry.
- Stars
- 2.4k
- Tracked growth
- +321.5%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 16m ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Cost to run
- Your API key; provider billing applies
Provides compact, auditable agent runtime with true OS-level container isolation so agents run in separate containers with explicit mounts instead of one large shared process.
- Stars
- 30.8k
- Tracked growth
- +3%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 46m ago
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Your API key (Anthropic/OpenAI) or local models
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 | harnessrouter | nanoclaw |
|---|---|---|
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 | ●●●●● Related files access |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● Minimal controls | ●●●●● Basic gating |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● Integration & policies | ●●●●● Code-based customization |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Self-hosted (provider keys) | ●●●●● Self-hostable |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● Bring-your-own-key | ●●●●● Bring-your-own key |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● Docker + API key | ●●●●● One-script install |
Which one to pick
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 3/5)
Pick nanoclaw if…
Privacy-first — run agents in isolated Docker containers on your own machine with per-agent mounts and the option to use local or BYO models.
- Setup ease: One-script install (5/5 against 3/5)
What people want from each one
HarnessRouter/harnessrouter
nanocoai/nanoclaw
Hacker News: Show HN: NanoClaw – “Clawdbot” in 500 lines of TS with Apple container isolation drew 533 points and 224 comments.
Questions people ask
Is harnessrouter better than nanoclaw?
They split the axes: harnessrouter leads on context depth, nanoclaw on setup ease. harnessrouter is worth picking when privacy-first — a one-container, self-hosted agent runtime that keeps keys and data on your infrastructure while supporting many provider backends.
Which of harnessrouter and nanoclaw keeps my code private?
harnessrouter: Self-hosted (provider keys) (4/5). nanoclaw: Self-hostable (4/5).
What does each one cost to run?
harnessrouter: Your API key; provider billing applies. nanoclaw: Your API key (Anthropic/OpenAI) or local models.
Full profiles: HarnessRouter/harnessrouter and nanocoai/nanoclaw. Everything else in Runtimes & sandboxes.