Agor

The trait that decides it is that other people can see what you are doing. Live cursors and comments on a shared board turn agent work from a private activity into something a colleague can look at, question and take over, which is the missing piece in almost every tool of this shape.

That only pays off if your team actually wants to work that way, and plenty do not. Pick it when review happens continuously rather than at the end. Pick cmux when you would rather nobody watched the first three attempts.

The risk is recursion with a budget attached. An agent that can create more sessions, give them context and put work on a schedule can expand its own footprint without a person approving each step, and nothing documented caps the depth, the count or the spend of that expansion.

What it does right is attribution. Every unit of work is a branch with its own directory, conversation and pull request, so even a runaway fan-out leaves a legible trail rather than a tangle in one checkout.

1. Most tools offer one relationship between related runs. Naming two, and giving them opposite context semantics, lets a user choose between continuity and cleanliness rather than discovering which they got. 2. That makes the context window a managed resource instead of an accident of session length.

2. Per-prompt accounting in tokens and currency means the cost of each choice is observable, which is the measurement most of this category omits. No task benchmark is published, and none is claimed.

The licence choice tells you the plan: source-available with a commercial restriction is what you pick when you intend to sell hosting later and do not want somebody else selling it first. The sponsor already runs a real business in a different category, so this is funded by a company that does not depend on it.

Moat: the licence, plus the multiplayer features that only matter at team scale. Likely path: a hosted tier, or a quiet fold into the parent's platform. Position: self-host it, read the conversion clause, and know when the terms change.

Permissions that follow the branch rather than the whole workspace is the first control model in this category I could actually map onto how my teams are organised, and self-hosting keeps the source inside our perimeter. Those two facts get this to a second meeting.

What holds it there is that a person has to be present for anything to happen, so it improves how sixty developers work and produces nothing my reporting can consume. The licence needs counsel's opinion before rollout. Approved with conditions: internal deployment, licence review, and one pilot team.

The runtime interchangeability is excellent: six coding agents behind one session concept, chosen per session, so I am never married to a vendor's client. The install is a single global package and a daemon I start myself, which is the right amount of ceremony.

The licence is where I stop. Source-available means I can read it and my rights to use a fork carry restrictions that a permissive project does not impose, and I have watched enough of these terms change to treat that as a real cost rather than a formality.