Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run
Crush vs Mirror CLI
Crush scores 56.5 (C) on agent readiness against Mirror CLI's 54.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. Mirror CLI leads on agent ergonomics, security & auth and payments & pricing. 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 37
- Maintenance & community, 82 against 47
Watch for
crush run approves every permission request automatically, which the README doesn't mention
Best for Developers who want Reflection's Beam in a terminal coding agent built alongside the model, or an open-source harness that also runs other providers and local endpoints.
Ahead on
- Agent ergonomics, 58 against 52
- Security & auth, 58 against 44
- Payments & pricing, 60 against 55
Also in its favour
- Open source
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.0 against 2.3 out of 5
Watch for
Version 0.1.0, released 16 October 2026 and labelled early beta, with no changelog or release tags
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Crush | Mirror CLI | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 54 | 37 | Crush +17 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 65 | 65 | even |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 52 | 58 | Mirror CLI +6 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 44 | 58 | Mirror CLI +14 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 55 | 60 | Mirror CLI +5 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 82 | 47 | Crush +35 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 58 | Mirror CLI +2 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.5/100 | C 54.2/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Crush | Mirror CLI |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | Charm | Reflection |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | OAuth or key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | FSL-1.1-MIT (source-available, each release converts to MIT two years after it is made available) | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-10-16 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | |
| Privacy policy last updated | no 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 | ||
| Popularity | 29k stars, 5.6k npm/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | 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.
Mirror CLI
Mirror CLI is Apache-2.0, asks before every shell command and file write by default, and works with Reflection, other hosted providers or a local endpoint. It is a one-day-old 0.1.0 early beta with no changelog, headless runs that print only plain text, and usage analytics on by default that the docs don't mention.
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
Mirror CLI
- Open Mirror interactively once in each directory before
mirror execormirror acp. Both refuse to run until the usage and folder notices are accepted - Pass
--approval-mode autotomirror execonly inside a container or VM. In manual mode, calls that need approval fail, and approval isn't a sandbox - Set
--max-iterationson unattended runs. Turns are unlimited by default - Check the result with your own tests.
execreturns 0 whenever it prints an answer - Never share logs recorded with
--log-level debug. The docs say they contain request headers with the API key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Crush or Mirror CLI?
Crush scores 56.5 (C) on agent readiness against Mirror CLI's 54.2 (C), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. Mirror CLI leads on agent ergonomics, security & auth and payments & pricing.
Are Crush and Mirror CLI open source?
No open-source release is listed for Crush. Mirror CLI is open source (Apache-2.0).
Other comparisons with Crush or Mirror CLI
- Agent Zero vs Crush
- Agent Zero vs Mirror CLI
- Aider vs Crush
- Aider vs Mirror CLI
- Amp vs Crush
- Amp vs Mirror CLI
- Antigravity CLI vs Crush
- Antigravity CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Auggie CLI vs Crush
- Auggie CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Claude Code vs Crush
- Claude Code vs Mirror CLI
- Cline vs Crush
- Cline vs Mirror CLI
- 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 Muse Code
- Crush vs OpenAI Codex
- Crush vs OpenCode
- Crush vs OpenHands
- Crush vs Prime Agent
- Crush vs Qoder CLI
- Crush vs Qwen Code
- Crush vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Crush vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- Cursor CLI vs Mirror CLI
- DeepSeek Harness (dsh) vs Mirror CLI
- Devin vs Mirror CLI
- Droid CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Pi vs Mirror CLI
- Gemini CLI vs Mirror CLI
- GitHub Copilot CLI vs Mirror CLI
- goose vs Mirror CLI
- Harness² vs Mirror CLI
- HarnessRouter vs Mirror CLI
- Jules vs Mirror CLI
- Junie CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Kimi Code CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Kiro CLI vs Mirror CLI
- mini-swe-agent vs Mirror CLI
- Mistral Vibe CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Muse Code vs Mirror CLI
- OpenAI Codex vs Mirror CLI
- OpenCode vs Mirror CLI
- OpenHands vs Mirror CLI
- Prime Agent vs Mirror CLI
- Qoder CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Qwen Code vs Mirror CLI
- Mirror CLI vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Mirror CLI vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- CLI Manager vs Crush
- CLI Manager vs Mirror CLI
- Crush vs Harness
- Crush vs Paperclip
- Crush vs Parallax
- Harness vs Mirror CLI
- Paperclip vs Mirror CLI
- Parallax vs Mirror CLI
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/crush-vs-reflection-mirror.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/crush.json·/api/v1/tools/reflection-mirror.json - From a terminal
anchor compare crush reflection-mirror(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "crush", "b": "reflection-mirror"}at/mcp, no key