Instinct vs ZeroClaw

Instinct

The terms and privacy policy are specific about connected accounts, model training and the risks of autonomous actions, and security.txt is valid. No price, documentation, status page, changelog or programmatic interface is published, and customer content trains AI models unless the owner opts out.

ZeroClaw

Supervised autonomy is the default, so tools outside a short read-only list wait for the owner's approval, and secrets are encrypted in the config file. The docs state that command execution is not written to an audit log, and the project publishes no privacy policy or terms.

Instinct

1. Do not plan on calling Instinct from a program. No API, MCP server or key was found, and the terms forbid automation software and benchmarking
2. A person signs in at app.instinct.com with a phone number and a one-time code by text, and may wait for a place when the service is at capacity
3. Tell the owner to opt out of model training at app.instinct.com/settings before connecting mail or files, since training is on by default
4. Disconnecting an account does not delete what was indexed from it. Delete that data at app.instinct.com/workspace
5. Treat purchases and bookings as final. The terms say actions may not be reversible and that confirmation controls are not guaranteed

ZeroClaw

1. Keep [risk_profiles.<alias>] level = "supervised". full runs every tool not listed in always_ask, and the YOLO preset removes the sandbox and path rules too
2. Add sending and account tools such as send_via, google_workspace and http_request to always_ask so a session-level Always grant cannot skip the prompt
3. List senders in [peer_groups.<name>] external_peers. ["*"] accepts anyone on that channel
4. Set [web_fetch].allowed_domains and [http_request].allowed_domains. Fetches run unprompted and the OS sandbox does not block egress
5. Run one-shot tasks with zeroclaw agent -a <alias> -m "<task>". A cron or webhook turn has no prompt, so shell calls fall to the command policy