Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run
Crush vs Muse Code
Muse Code scores 61.3 (C) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on reliability, payments & pricing and maintenance & community. 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 45
- Payments & pricing, 55 against 20
- Maintenance & community, 82 against 75
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
Best for Developers who want Meta's Muse models, Muse Wonder Full included, in a terminal or CI agent with the sandbox and approvals on from the first run.
Ahead on
- Schema & documentation, 84 against 65
- Agent ergonomics, 79 against 52
- Security & auth, 67 against 44
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.3 against 2.3 out of 5
Watch for
Closed source, with no public CI or issue tracker for the CLI found and release notes that carry no dates
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Crush | Muse Code | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 54 | 45 | Crush +9 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 65 | 84 | Muse Code +19 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 52 | 79 | Muse Code +27 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 44 | 67 | Muse Code +23 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 55 | 20 | Crush +35 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 82 | 75 | Crush +7 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 57 | Muse Code +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.5/100 | C 61.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Crush | Muse Code |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | Charm | Meta |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | FSL-1.1-MIT (source-available, each release converts to MIT two years after it is made available) | Proprietary binary, used under the Meta Model API Terms of Service, which cover Meta's coding harness. Subscriptions are also under the Meta Subscription Terms of Service. The TypeScript and Python SDKs in the linked repository are MIT. |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-10-11 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | couldn't be read |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Popularity | 29k stars, 5.6k npm/wk | 63k npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | 3.3/5 (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.
Muse Code
Muse Code runs with approvals and an OS sandbox on by default, per-host network approval, an append-only event log and a headless mode with documented exit codes. It is the only route to Muse Wonder Full. It is closed source with undated release notes and no free route, and subscriptions allow training on code unless Contributor mode is turned off.
Before you call either
Crush
- Add
permissions denyrules or a PreToolUse hook beforecrush run. It approves every permission request in its session - Read
.crushrc,crushrcandcrush.jsonin a cloned repository before running Crush there. They execute as shell code at startup - Set
CRUSH_DISABLE_METRICS=1orDO_NOT_TRACK=1to stop usage metrics to data.charm.land - Wrap
crush runin your own timeout. It has no turn, time or cost limit flag - Configure a provider by environment variable or
crushrcfirst. With none,crush runexits with an error asking for interactive setup
Muse Code
- Set
META_API_KEYfor headless runs. Browser sign-in isn't available in CI or for Meta Managed Accounts - Gate on your own test command, not the exit code.
muse execreturns 0 when the turn completes even if tests still fail - Pass
--max-model-stepson unattended runs so a stuck task can't loop - Prefer
--disable-approvalto--yoloin CI so the sandbox stays on. On Linux the runner needs a working bubblewrap and a non-musl build - Turn Contributor mode off in
/settingsbefore a subscription session touches private code
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Crush or Muse Code?
Muse Code scores 61.3 (C) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on reliability, payments & pricing and maintenance & community.
Other comparisons with Crush or Muse Code
- Agent Zero vs Crush
- Agent Zero vs Muse Code
- Aider vs Crush
- Aider vs Muse Code
- Amp vs Crush
- Amp vs Muse Code
- Antigravity CLI vs Crush
- Antigravity CLI vs Muse Code
- Auggie CLI vs Crush
- Auggie CLI vs Muse Code
- Claude Code vs Crush
- Claude Code vs Muse Code
- Cline vs Crush
- Cline vs Muse Code
- Crush vs Cursor CLI
- Crush vs DeepSeek Harness (dsh)
- Crush vs Devin
- Crush vs Droid CLI
- Crush vs Pi
- Crush vs Gemini CLI
- Crush vs GitHub Copilot CLI
- Crush vs goose
- Crush vs Harness²
- Crush vs HarnessRouter
- Crush vs Jules
- Crush vs Junie CLI
- Crush vs Kilo Code CLI
- Crush vs Kimi Code CLI
- Crush vs Kiro CLI
- Crush vs mini-swe-agent
- Crush vs Mistral Vibe CLI
- Crush vs OpenAI Codex
- Crush vs OpenCode
- Crush vs OpenHands
- Crush vs Prime Agent
- Crush vs Qoder CLI
- Crush vs Qwen Code
- Crush vs Mirror CLI
- Crush vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Crush vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- Cursor CLI vs Muse Code
- DeepSeek Harness (dsh) vs Muse Code
- Devin vs Muse Code
- Droid CLI vs Muse Code
- Pi vs Muse Code
- Gemini CLI vs Muse Code
- GitHub Copilot CLI vs Muse Code
- goose vs Muse Code
- Harness² vs Muse Code
- HarnessRouter vs Muse Code
- Jules vs Muse Code
- Junie CLI vs Muse Code
- Kilo Code CLI vs Muse Code
- Kimi Code CLI vs Muse Code
- Kiro CLI vs Muse Code
- mini-swe-agent vs Muse Code
- Mistral Vibe CLI vs Muse Code
- Muse Code vs OpenAI Codex
- Muse Code vs OpenCode
- Muse Code vs OpenHands
- Muse Code vs Prime Agent
- Muse Code vs Qoder CLI
- Muse Code vs Qwen Code
- Muse Code vs Mirror CLI
- Muse Code vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Muse Code vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- CLI Manager vs Crush
- CLI Manager vs Muse Code
- Crush vs Harness
- Crush vs Paperclip
- Crush vs Parallax
- Harness vs Muse Code
- Muse Code vs Paperclip
- Muse Code vs Parallax
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/crush-vs-muse-code.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/crush.json·/api/v1/tools/muse-code.json - From a terminal
anchor compare crush muse-code(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "crush", "b": "muse-code"}at/mcp, no key