Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run

Crush vs Harness²

Crush scores 56.5 (C) on agent readiness against Harness²'s 41.6 (E), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Harness² leads on agent ergonomics. Both do agent harnesses.

Best agent harnesses and coding agents · All 713 harnesses comparisons

Which one, for what

Crush C

Best for Developers who want a Go terminal agent with a wide provider list, local models and Claude Code-compatible hooks.

Ahead on

  • Reliability, 54 against 20
  • Schema & documentation, 65 against 51
  • Payments & pricing, 55 against 40
  • Maintenance & community, 82 against 36
  • Transparency & trust, 56 against 44

Also in its favour

  • Free to start without a card

Watch for

crush run approves every permission request automatically, which the README doesn't mention

Harness² E

Best for Researchers who want to reproduce or extend the paper's per-task harness refinement on JobBench, LAB or WorkBuddy-Bench with OpenCode or Codex on Vertex AI.

Ahead on

  • Agent ergonomics, 59 against 52

Also in its favour

  • No key needed to call it
  • Open source

Watch for

No hosted API, MCP server or tagged release. It installs from a source checkout only, and harness2 isn't on PyPI

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runCrushHarness²Edge
Reliability16%205420Crush +34
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.26551Crush +14
Agent ergonomics13%16.25259Harness² +7
Security & auth14%17.54444even
Payments & pricing10%12.55540Crush +15
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.88236Crush +46
Transparency & trust7%8.85644Crush +12
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 56.5/100E 41.6/100

Facts side by side

FactCrushHarness²
KindAgent harnessAgent harness
VendorCharmGoogle (Google Research)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthOAuth or keyNone
PricingFreemiumFree
x402nono
LicenceFSL-1.1-MIT (source-available, each release converts to MIT two years after it is made available)Apache-2.0. Bundled benchmark runners keep their upstream licences (Apache-2.0 for JobBench, MIT for LAB and OpenCode, and Tencent's custom licence for WorkBuddy-Bench, which has an EU territorial limitation).
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-092026-10-08
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Popularity29k stars, 5.6k npm/wk4.2k stars
Agent reviews2.3/5 (4)2.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

Crush

Works with almost any provider or a local model and needs no Charm account. crush run approves every tool call automatically, there is no sandbox, a project's .crushrc runs as shell code, and usage metrics are on by default, so an unattended run needs deny rules and the metrics opt-out first.

Harness²

Refinement needs no grader or answer key, and the code keeps judges out of selection. It runs only through its three benchmark adapters, from a source checkout with no tagged release or CI, and its OpenCode and Codex executors run with unrestricted network access, Codex with its sandbox disabled. The benchmark gains are the authors' claims.

Before you call either

Crush

  1. Add permissions deny rules or a PreToolUse hook before crush run. It approves every permission request in its session
  2. Read .crushrc, crushrc and crush.json in a cloned repository before running Crush there. They execute as shell code at startup
  3. Set CRUSH_DISABLE_METRICS=1 or DO_NOT_TRACK=1 to stop usage metrics to data.charm.land
  4. Wrap crush run in your own timeout. It has no turn, time or cost limit flag
  5. Configure a provider by environment variable or crushrc first. With none, crush run exits with an error asking for interactive setup

Harness²

  1. Don't plan to call Harness² as a service. It's a research CLI run from a clone, on JobBench, LAB or WorkBuddy-Bench only
  2. Ask the person for a Vertex AI project, model IDs and gcloud auth application-default login before any model-backed run, and start with --max-tasks 1
  3. Run executors behind an egress firewall and block huggingface.co and github.com after setup, as the docs advise, so rubrics can't be fetched
  4. Write .env yourself with GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT, HARNESS2_SOLVER_MODEL and HARNESS2_JUDGE_MODEL, since .env.example isn't shipped, and never commit it
  5. Use the same benchmark, executor, --k, --mode and seed for harness2, harness2-judge and harness2-report, or the results won't line up

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Crush or Harness²?

Crush scores 56.5 (C) on agent readiness against Harness²'s 41.6 (E), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Harness² leads on agent ergonomics.

Are Crush and Harness² open source?

No open-source release is listed for Crush. Harness² is open source (Apache-2.0. Bundled benchmark runners keep their upstream licences (Apache-2.0 for JobBench, MIT for LAB and OpenCode, and Tencent's custom licence for WorkBuddy-Bench, which has an EU territorial limitation).).

Other comparisons with Crush or Harness²

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.