If you’re the creator of this harness, you should disclose that. I have nothing against self-promotion, it’s just considered good practice.

Some feedback but it might be worth calling out how your harness differs from other relatively light-weight ones like Pi. I assume its got a much smaller memory footprint given yours is C versus Pi's. There are so many agentic harnesses out there that a comparison table might be a nice thing to have on the landind page.

Note: Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of trying to hide it, given that the GitHub account for Hax is basically identical to your HN account.

▲

OleksandrC an hour ago | parent [-]

I am the author of hax, yes.

If you are familiar with pi, then some of the key features listed on the GitHub page (and website) already illustrate substantial differences: hax is much smaller in footprint (I wouldn't even call pi "light-weight", really - heavy js runtime with a lot of dependencies), hax preserves native terminal scrollback (pi uses alt-screen fullscreen, or clears in some cases in differential mode), hax uses normal XDG dirs (pi uses ~/.pi), hax is extended out-of-process (pi suggests in-process plugins).

There are other differences in presentation, and in features (for example, hax has background bash invocation out-of-the-box). Not practical to list all of them.

	▲	vunderba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks I'll have to set aside some time later to try it out. It's kind of a sliding scale, but pi is definitely lighter-weight when compared to harnesses like Opencode and the all-batteries included "Oh-My-Pi". And of course, “lightweight” does have a lot of interpretations where harnesses are concerned (memory footprint, binary size, performance, system prompt, etc).