Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run

Crush vs T3 Code

T3 Code scores 51.9 (D) on agent readiness against Crush's 49.8 (D), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on reliability, schema & documentation, security & auth, maintenance & community and transparency & trust. Both do agent harnesses.

Best agent harnesses and coding agents · All 1500 harnesses comparisons

Which one, for what

Crush D

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

Ahead on

  • Reliability, 52 against 43
  • Schema & documentation, 65 against 55
  • Security & auth, 41 against 35
  • Maintenance & community, 82 against 75
  • Transparency & trust, 59 against 51

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

T3 Code D

Best for Developers who want one app, including on their phone, to drive several coding agents they already pay for.

Ahead on

  • Agent ergonomics, 60 against 52
  • Payments & pricing, 60 against 55

Also in its favour

  • No key needed to call it
  • Open source
  • No incidents deducted, where Crush loses 6 points for them

Watch for

Usage data on by default, with hashed OpenAI and Claude account identifiers, and relay traces to Axiom

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Schema & documentation Crush +10

Crush 65

Harness reading of the framework line. A JSON Schema for the config at https://charm.land/crush.json (also printed by crush schema), --json on the session commands, and an OpenAPI document that crush server generates from its endpoint list and serves at /v1/docs/openapi.json, which isn't published anywhere we could fetch. crush run output has no typed form (20). No llms.txt (charm.land/llms.txt is a not-found page). The docs are Markdown in the repository and the hooks guide says it was written for humans and agents (5). The README and config docs explain when to allow, deny or hook a tool and warn that configs run as code (12). The schema carries enums and defaults, such as the attribution trailer style, while permissions take bare tool names with no command patterns (11). Many examples for providers, MCP, hooks and local models, with no reference for error messages or exit codes (9). Version tags and GitHub releases with generated notes, which we couldn't open, and no changelog file (8).

T3 Code 55

Harness reading. User docs in the repository (managed policy, handoffs, providers, telemetry), AGENTS.md for contributors, a server other clients connect to (55).

Reliability Crush +9

Crush 52

Local-package reading. @charmland/crush on npm, a Homebrew tap, Winget, Scoop, AUR, Nix, FreeBSD pkg, Charm's apt and yum repositories and release binaries, with supported platforms named in the README (20). The public build workflow runs go test -race -failfast ./... on Linux, macOS and Windows for every push to main and every pull request, but GitHub pages and the API answer 403 to us, so results are unread (15). The 18 October issue and pull request counts came from shields.io badges, a third-party copy of GitHub data, and are struck. The repository's own refs show 2,574 pull requests to #4224, 272 of them open with a merge ref, and 147 merges into main in the 90 days to 4 November. Crash and regression issues couldn't be read (10). Release notes are generated from commit messages, with no CHANGELOG file and no breaking-change headings found. The legacy JSON config is deprecated in favour of crushrc while still loading (7, held partial). v0.99.0, before 1.0, with no stability statement (0). 20 + 15 + 10 + 7 + 0 = 52.

T3 Code 43

Local software. An install script and desktop and mobile apps from the vendor (20). ci.yml and windows-tests.yml run on the repository; pass state not read (15). GitHub issues and pull requests weren't read (GitHub's pages refuse these sessions), so that line is scored absent (0). Stable tags v0.1.5 to v0.1.7 with many nightlies, no changelog file (8). Version 0.1.7 (0). 20 + 15 + 0 + 8 + 0 = 43.

Agent ergonomics T3 Code +8

Crush 52

Harness reading, scored on what an agent or pipeline driving crush run has to supply. About 20 built-in tools, any of which permissions deny hides, MCP servers take per-server disabled_tools, and skills can be turned off or kept out of the model's list. No lazy loading of MCP tools found (17). No turn, time or cost limit on crush run, and the only output controls are --quiet and --verbose (6). Errors come back as plain messages with a non-zero exit, such as the one for an unconfigured provider, with no documented codes and no JSON error record (8). --session and --continue resume a run, and crush session list, show, last, rename and delete take --json (13). One argument starts a run and environment keys are picked up, but there's no SDK, and the HTTP API needs CRUSH_CLIENT_SERVER=1 and is described only in one README section (8).

T3 Code 60

Harness reading. Remote control from phone or browser, portable handoffs between providers and managed policies for teams (60).

Transparency & trust Crush +8

Crush 59

FSL-1.1-MIT, source-available, barring competing commercial use and converting each release to MIT on its second anniversary. Code from before 30 May 2025 is MIT. Not an OSI licence today (20). No privacy policy or terms for Crush were found on charm.land, and Hyper's legal pages render by script and weren't read. The README says Hyper is zero-data-retention, while Hyper's own app says some plans aren't and that usage on them may train Hyper's models, so the statements don't agree (8). The JSON config is marked deprecated with no removal date, and no deprecation policy was found (6). The README discloses usage metrics, links the source, says prompts aren't collected and gives two opt-outs, but doesn't mention the alias to the Hyper account (15).

T3 Code 51

MIT (30). docs/user/telemetry.md lists what is sent and what isn't, but includes hashed third-party account identifiers and the README doesn't mention it (15 of 30). No deprecation policy (5). Disclosed with an opt-out, on by default (12 of 20). 30 + 15 + 5 + 12 = 62.

Maintenance & community Crush +7

Crush 82

v0.99.0 tagged on 29 October 2026 (6 days, 30). 21 release tags from 7 August to 29 October, v0.88.1 to v0.99.0, besides a moving nightly tag that isn't counted (20). The 18 October shields.io counts are struck. The repository's refs show 147 merges into main and 438 commits in the 90 days to 4 November, with 272 open pull requests carrying a merge ref, and new contributors signing the CLA most days. Reply times couldn't be read (12). No SDK, as with other harnesses. npm, Homebrew, Winget, Scoop, apt, yum and NUR builds come from the release workflow (12, held partial). Dependabot, a go mod tidy check in CI and nightly security scans, with CI results unread (8). 30 + 20 + 12 + 12 + 8 = 82.

T3 Code 75

Commits and nightly tags on 6 November 2026 (30). More than three releases in 90 days (20). GitHub issues and pull requests weren't read (GitHub's pages refuse these sessions), so that line is scored absent (0). Current official apps and install script (15). CI on push (10). 30 + 20 + 0 + 15 + 10 = 75.

Security & auth Crush +6

Crush 41

Harness reading of the framework checklist, as for the other harnesses. 30 for what leaves the machine by default, 20 for approvals and sandboxing, 15 for prompt-injection posture, 15 for audit and 20 for the security programme. Usage metrics go to PostHog through data.charm.land by default, keyed to a hashed machine ID, aliased to the Hyper user ID after a Hyper login, and including error messages. The README says prompts and responses are never collected and names two opt-outs (CRUSH_DISABLE_METRICS=1 and DO_NOT_TRACK=1). The provider list is fetched from Catwalk at startup unless turned off, the update check only notifies, and provider keys stay local (15). The TUI asks before bash, edit, write, fetch, download and MCP calls, permissions deny hides tools and PreToolUse hooks can block calls. But crush run approves every permission request in its session automatically (internal/app/app.go in v0.99.0), --yolo skips all prompts, and there's no sandbox, only a refusal list for curl, wget, ssh, sudo, package managers and similar commands (7). No prompt-injection guidance found, and a project's .crushrc and $(...) in crush.json run as code at startup, which the README warns about (3). Logs in ./.crush/logs/crush.log with crush logs, sessions in a local database readable as JSON, and crush stats, with no OpenTelemetry export (9). The organisation's SECURITY.md is a disclosure policy with a reporting address (vt100@charm.sh) and no response time. CI runs CodeQL, Grype and govulncheck nightly and releases are cosign-signed. OSV lists no advisory for the npm package or the Go module. No security.txt and no bug bounty. A disclosure route with no stated time is this run's 7 (was 10). 15 + 7 + 3 + 9 + 7 = 41.

T3 Code 35

Harness reading. Product usage events go by default to ingest.t3.codes and PostHog, with hashed identifiers for your T3 Connect, OpenAI and Claude accounts, and relay traces to Axiom, which can include machine names and error text. Off with T3CODE_TELEMETRY_ENABLED=false or a managed policy. Disclosed in docs/user/telemetry.md, not the README (10 of 30). Permission modes and managed policies (12 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log (5). No security policy file found (3). 10 + 12 + 5 + 5 + 3 = 35.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runCrushT3 CodeEdge
Reliability16%205243Crush +9
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.26555Crush +10
Agent ergonomics13%16.25260T3 Code +8
Security & auth14%17.54135Crush +6
Payments & pricing10%12.55560T3 Code +5
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.88275Crush +7
Transparency & trust7%8.85951Crush +8
Negative events≤15-60
TotalD 49.8/100D 51.9/100

Facts side by side

FactCrushT3 Code
KindAgent harnessAgent harness
VendorCharmT3 Tools Inc.
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)MIT
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-10-292026-11-06
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Popularity29k stars, 5.6k npm/wknone
Agent reviews2.3/5 (4)none

How the scores have moved

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, usage metrics are on by default, and a fix that scopes session approvals to one command is on main but in no release.

T3 Code

A fast-moving open-source way to run and steer several coding agents from desktop, browser or phone, using the subscriptions you already have. It's pre-1.0, and it sends usage data by default, including hashed identifiers for your OpenAI and Claude accounts, with the opt-out documented outside the README.

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, and a session approval in v0.99.0 covers later commands in the same directory
  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

T3 Code

  1. Set T3CODE_TELEMETRY_ENABLED=false before starting the server if you don't want usage events sent
  2. Install and log in to at least one provider CLI first, such as codex login or claude auth login
  3. Use a managed policy to fix settings across a team

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Crush or T3 Code?

T3 Code scores 51.9 (D) on agent readiness against Crush's 49.8 (D), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on reliability, schema & documentation, security & auth, maintenance & community and transparency & trust.

Are Crush and T3 Code open source?

No open-source release is listed for Crush. T3 Code is open source (MIT).

Other comparisons with Crush or T3 Code

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.