Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run

Harness² vs Muse Code

Muse Code scores 61.3 (C) on agent readiness against Harness²'s 41.6 (E), and leads in 6 of 7 scored categories. Harness² leads on payments & pricing. Both do agent harnesses.

Best agent harnesses and coding agents · All 354 harnesses comparisons

Which one, for what

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

  • Payments & pricing, 40 against 20

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

Muse Code C

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

  • Reliability, 45 against 20
  • Schema & documentation, 84 against 51
  • Agent ergonomics, 79 against 59
  • Security & auth, 67 against 44
  • Maintenance & community, 75 against 36
  • Transparency & trust, 57 against 44

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.3 against 2.5 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

CategoryWeight this runHarness²Muse CodeEdge
Reliability16%202045Muse Code +25
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.25184Muse Code +33
Agent ergonomics13%16.25979Muse Code +20
Security & auth14%17.54467Muse Code +23
Payments & pricing10%12.54020Harness² +20
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.83675Muse Code +39
Transparency & trust7%8.84457Muse Code +13
Negative events≤1500
TotalE 41.6/100C 61.3/100

Facts side by side

FactHarness²Muse Code
KindAgent harnessAgent harness
VendorGoogle (Google Research)Meta
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneOAuth or key
PricingFreePaid
x402nono
LicenceApache-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).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 documentednoyes
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-10-082026-10-11
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedcouldn'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
Popularity4.2k stars63k npm/wk
Agent reviews2.5/5 (4)3.3/5 (4)

Verdicts

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.

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

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

Muse Code

  1. Set META_API_KEY for headless runs. Browser sign-in isn't available in CI or for Meta Managed Accounts
  2. Gate on your own test command, not the exit code. muse exec returns 0 when the turn completes even if tests still fail
  3. Pass --max-model-steps on unattended runs so a stuck task can't loop
  4. Prefer --disable-approval to --yolo in CI so the sandbox stays on. On Linux the runner needs a working bubblewrap and a non-musl build
  5. Turn Contributor mode off in /settings before a subscription session touches private code

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Harness² or Muse Code?

Muse Code scores 61.3 (C) on agent readiness against Harness²'s 41.6 (E), and leads in 6 of 7 scored categories. Harness² leads on payments & pricing.

Are Harness² and Muse Code open source?

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).). No open-source release is listed for Muse Code.

Other comparisons with Harness² or Muse 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.