Paperclip vs Paseo

Paperclip 81

The running server publishes OpenAPI at /api/openapi.json and validates requests with Zod, and the MCP server's tools take Zod schemas. No copy of the spec is published on the docs site, and paperclip.ing/openapi.json describes only the website (22). llms.txt at paperclip.ing, and docs pages answer as Markdown at .md (10). An API reference page per resource and task guides, but the MCP tool descriptions are one line each, such as List agents in a company (13). Typed inputs throughout, apart from the paperclipApiRequest tool, which takes any path under /api and a JSON body (12). cURL, JavaScript and Python examples and a status-code table, with one {error} shape and an occasional details field (12). A changelog page for every stable release and release notes in the repository, but the API path carries no version (12).

Paseo 65

Harness reading. Public docs, a CLI and plugin examples in the repository (65).

Paperclip 59

Read as local software. Official npm package paperclipai (Node.js 24.11 or newer) and a Docker image on GHCR (20). Public CI that runs the tests (pr-trusted.yml selects and runs the test shards, and e2e.yml runs the end-to-end suite), with the pass state on master unreadable on 4 November 2026 because GitHub's pages answer 403 here (15). Per the 8 October check, not re-read on 4 November, 2,849 open issues, 125 labelled bug, 1,599 opened before 8 July, and 78 closed in the last 30 days against 686 opened (6). Calendar versions in semver syntax, with a Breaking Changes section and an upgrade guide in release notes, but breaking changes arrive in ordinary releases and 2026.916.0 carried five (10). No 1.0. The npm latest tag is called the stable channel and follows a beta soak of at least three days, while the roadmap says the product is still moving quickly, so half credit (8). 20 + 15 + 6 + 10 + 8 = 59.

Paseo 50

Local software. Desktop builds, an Android APK, a Docker image and a Nix package (20). ci.yml 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). CHANGELOG.md (15). Version 0.15.3 (0). 20 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 50.

Paperclip 64

Harness reading of the framework checklist, as used 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. Anonymous usage telemetry is on by default and goes to telemetry.paperclip.ing. The README lists what is excluded and four opt-outs, and Sentry and OpenTelemetry stay off until configured. We found no first-run notice in the CLI source (18). Board approvals for hires and strategy, execution policies and per-action connection permissions, but claude_local defaults dangerouslySkipPermissions to true, codex_local defaults to bypassing approvals and the sandbox, local agents run on the host, sandbox providers are optional plugins and the default local_trusted mode has no login (10). A documented low_trust_review preset contains agents that read untrusted pull requests or tickets. It is opt-in (10). An activity log of mutating actions, run logs, cost events and audited board API keys (14). SECURITY.md with GitHub private reporting and twelve advisories published per the 8 October check, three now with CVEs in OSV. No security.txt, bug bounty or SOC 2 report found (12).

Paseo 58

Harness reading. The README says no telemetry, tracking or forced log-ins (30 of 30). Worktree per agent, on your own machine (10 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log (5). SECURITY.md (8). 30 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 8 = 58.