Show HN: NanoClaw – “Clawdbot” in 500 lines of TS with Apple container isolation
github.com330 points by jimminyx 10 hours ago
330 points by jimminyx 10 hours ago
I’ve been running Clawdbot for the last couple weeks and have genuinely found it useful but running it scares the crap out of me.
OpenClaw has 52+ modules and runs agents with near-unlimited permissions in a single Node process. NanoClaw is ~500 lines of core code, agents run in actual Apple containers with filesystem isolation. Each chat gets its own sandboxed context.
This is not a swiss army knife. It’s built to match my exact needs. Fork it and make it yours.
I think these days if I’m going to be actively promoting code I’ve created (with Claude, no shade for that), I’ll make sure to write the documentation, or at the very least the readme, by hand. The smell of LLM from the docs of any project puts me off even when I like the idea of the project itself, as in this case. It’s hard to describe why - maybe it feels like if you care enough to promote it, you should care to try and actually communicate, person to person, to the human being promoted at. Dunno, just my 2c and maybe just my own preference. I’d rather read a typo-ridden five line readme explaining the problem the code is there to solve for you and me,the humans, not dozens of lines of perfectly penned marketing with just the right number of emoji. We all know how easy it is to write code these days. Maybe use some of that extra time to communicate with the humans. I dunno. Edit: I see you, making edits to the readme to make it sound more human-written since I commented ;) https://github.com/gavrielc/nanoclaw/commit/40d41542d2f335a0... OP here. Appreciate your perspective but I don't really accept the framing, which feels like it's implying that I've been caught out for writing and coding with AI. I don't make any attempt to hide it. Nearly every commit message says "Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5". You correctly pointed out that there were some AI smells in the writing, so I removed them, just like I correct typos, and the writing is now better. I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me. I'm sharing it because I think it can be useful to other people. Not as production code but as a reference or starting point they can use to build (collaboratively with claude code) functional custom software for themselves. I spent a weekend giving instructions to coding agents to build this. I put time and effort into the architecture, especially in relation to security. I chose to post while it's still rough because I need to close out my work on it for now - can't keep going down this rabbit hole the whole week :) I hope it will be useful to others. BTW, I know the readme irked you but if you read it I promise it will make a lot more sense where this project is coming from ;) The problem with LLM-written is that I run into so many README.md's where it's clear the author barely read the thing they're expecting me to read and it's got errors that waste my time and energy. I don't mind it if I have good reason to believe the author actually read the docs, but that's hard to know from someone I don't know on the internet. So I actually really appreciate if you are editing the docs to make them sound more human written. ”I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me.” - AI software engineering in a nutshell. Leaving the human artisan era of code behind. Function over form. Substance over style. Getting stuff done. There should never have been an "artisan era". We use computers to solve problems. You should have always getting stuff done instead of bikeshedding over nitty-gritty details, like when in the office people have been spending weeks on optimizing code... just to have the exact same output, exact same time, but now "nicer". You get paid to get stuff done, period. The art department is that way, we do engineering here. Faster is better. What part of faster is better means engineering to you? Non engineers will prefer you get there faster, but however you get there, better is better. If you want to say something just say it no need for trap questions. Faster delivery of a project being better for engineering is obviously one of the most important things because it gives you back time to invest in other parts of your project. All engineering is trade-offs. Being faster at developing basic code is better, the end. If nothing else you can now spend more time on requirements and on a second iteration with your customer. Was about to comment precisely this, that line does not inspire any confidence. And it reminds me of a comment I saw in a thread 2 days ago. One about how RAPIDLY ITERATIVE the environment is now. There area lot of weekend projects being made over the knee of a robot nowadays and then instantly shared. Even OpenClaw is to a great extent, an example of that at its current age. Which comes in contrast to the length of time it used to take to get these small projects off the ground in the past. And also in contrast with how much code gets abandoned before and after "public release. I'm looking at AI evangelists and I know they're largely correct about AI. I also look at what the heck they built, and either they're selling me something AI related, or have a bunch of defunct one-shot babies or mostly tools so limited in scope they server only themselves with it. We used to have a filter for these things. Salesmen always sold promises, so, no change there, just the buzzwords. But the cloutchasers? Those were way smaller in number. People building the "thing" so the "thing" exists mostly stopped before we ever heard of the "thing", because, turns out, caring about the "thing" does not actually translate to the motivation to getting it done. Or Maintain it. What we have now is a reverse survivorship bias. OOP stating they don't care about the state of their code during their public release, means I must assume they're a Cloutchaser. Either they don't care because they know they can do better which means they shared something that isn't their best, so their motivation with the comment is to highlight the idea. They just wanted to be first. Clout. Or they don't exactly concern with if they can as they just don't care about code in general and just want the product, be it good or be it not. They believe in the idea enough they want to ensure it exists, regardless of what's in the pudding. Which means to me, they also don't care to understand what's in the ingredient list. Which means they aren't best to maintain it. And that latter is the kind that, before the LLM slop was a concept in our minds, were precisely ones among the people who would give up half way through Making The "Thing". See you in 16 weeks OP. I'll eat my shoe then. Hey, you do you, I’m glad you appreciate my perspective. I wasn’t trying to catch you out but I see how it came across that way - I apologise for my edit, I had hoped the ;) would show that I meant it in jest rather than in meanness but I shouldn’t have added it in the first place. As I said in my comment, no shade for writing the code with Claude. I do it too, every day. I wasn’t “irked” by the readme, and I did read it. But it didn’t give me a sense that you had put in “time and effort” because it felt deeply LLM-authored, and my comment was trying to explore that and how it made me feel. I had little meaningful data on whether you put in that effort because the readme - the only thing I could really judge the project by - sounded vibe coded too. And if I can’t tell if there has been care put into something like the readme how can I tell if there’s been care put into any part of the project? If there has and if that matters - say, I put care into this and that’s why I’m doing a show HN about it - then it should be evident and not hidden behind a wall of LLM-speak! Or at least; that’s what I think. As I said in a sibling comment, maybe I’m already a dinosaur and this entire topic won’t matter in a few years anyway. There needs to be a word for the feeling of sudden realization that you're reading an AI-generated text (or watching an AI-generated video) where you expected it to be human-authored. For example - I checked src/, and there’s clearly more than ~500 lines of code, ignoring the other dirs. I’m on mobile, maybe someone else can run wc -l on the repo and confirm. Is there a reason this number is inaccurately stated? Immediately makes me wary of the vibe coded nature of it. I 100% agree, reading very obviously ai written blogs and "product pages"/readme's has turned into a real ick for me. Just something that screams "I don't care about my product/readme page, why should you". To be clear, no issue with using AI to write the actual program/whatever it is. It's just the readme/product page which super turns me off even trying/looking into it. Why do you think people do not care about something if they AI generated it? I care about many things I've generated. Project releases with llms have grown to be less about the functionality and more about convincing others to care. Before the proof of work of code in a repo by default was a signal of a lot of thought going into something. Now this flood of code in these vibe coded projects is by default cheap and borderline meaningless. Not throwing shade or anything at coding assistants. Just the way it goes the main reason I'd want a person to write or at least curate readmes is because models have, at least for the time being, this tendency to make confident and plausible-sounding claims that are completely false (hallucination applied to claims on the stuff they just made) so long as this is commonplace I'd be extremely sceptical of anything with some LLM-style readmes and docs the caveats to this is that LLMs can be trained to fool people with human-sounding and imperfectly written readmes, and that although humans can quickly oversee that things compile and seem to produce the expected outputs, there's deeper stuff like security issues and subtle userspace-breaking changes track-record is going to see its importance redoubled I agree 100% with you. It's even worse though. They haven't checked if the Readme has hallucinated it or not (spoiler: it has): I don’t want to come off like I’m shitting on the poster here. I’ve definitely made that kind of careless mistake, probably a dozen times this week. And maybe we’re heading to a future where nobody even reads the readme anymore because they won’t be needed because an agent can just conjure one from the source code at will, so maybe it actually straight up doesn’t matter. I’ve just been thinking about what it means to release software nowadays, and I think the window for releasing software for clout and credit is closing, since creating software basically requires a Claude subscription and an idea now, so fewer people are impressed by the thing simply existing, and the standard of care for a project released for that aim (of clout) needs to be higher than it maybe needed to be in the past. But who knows, I’m probably already a dinosaur in today’s world, and I really don’t mean to shit on the OP - it’s a good idea for a project and it makes a lot of sense for it to exist. I just can’t tell if any actual care has gone into it, and if not, why promote? > I don’t want to come off like I’m shitting on the poster Why not, if they're making people read AI slop without checking it first? They deserve the shit-nudge to fix it. > I’d rather read a typo-ridden five line readme explaining the problem the code is there to solve for you and me,the humans, not dozens of lines of perfectly penned marketing with just the right number of emoji Don't worry, bro. If enough people are like you, there will be fully automatic workflow to add typos into AI writing. As a practical matter, if it tones down the AI sleuthing vs. reading, it might be a good idea. Assuming the written/generated text is well written/generated, of course. > running it scares the crap out of me A hundred times this. It's fine until it isn't. And jacking these Claws into shared conversation spaces is quite literally pushing the afterburners to max on simonw's lethal trifecta. A lot of people are going to get burned hard by this. Every blackhat is eyes-on this right now - we're literally giving a drunk robot the keys to everything. It turns out the lethal trifecta is not so lethal. Should a business avoid hiring employees since technically employees can steal from the cash register. The lethal trifecta is about binary security. Either the data can be taken or it can't. This may be overly cautious. It may be possible that hiring an employee has a positive expected value when when you account for the possibility of one stealing from the cash register. Employees are humans and therefore subject to the law. There are remedies. And you can point a camera at the cash register. Who are you going to arrest and/or sue when you run a chat bot "at your own risk" and it shoots you in the foot? If your chatbot provided you 1.5 feet worth of value before shooting your foot it may have been worth it. The optimal self damage to maximize total value may be non 0. Maybe. People have run wildly insecure phpBB and Wordpress plugins, so maybe its the same cycle again. Those usually didn't have keys to all your data. Worst case, you lost your server, and perhaps you hosted your emails there too? Very bad, but nothing compared to the access these clawdbot instances get. > Those usually didn't have keys to all your data. As a former (bespoke) WP hosting provider, I'd counter those usually did. Not sure I ever met a prospective "online" business customer's build that didn't? They'd put their entire business into WP installs with plugins for everything. Our step one was to turn WP into static site gen and get WP itself behind a firewall and VPN, and even then single tenant only on isolated networks per tenant. To be fair that data wasn't ALL about everyone's PII — until by ~2008 when the Buddy Press craze was hot. And that was much more difficult to keep safe. I understand that things can go wrong and there can be security issues, but I see at least two other issues: 1. what if, ChadGPT style, ads are added to the answers (like OpenAI said it'd do, hence the new "ChadGPT" name)? 2. what if the current prices really are unsustainable and the thing goes 10x? Are we living some golden age where we can both query LLMs on the cheap and not get ad-infected answers? I read several comments in different threads made by people saying: "I use AI because search results are too polluted and the Web is unusable" And I now do the same: "Gemini, compare me the HP Z640 and HP Z840 workstations, list the features in a table" / "Find me which Xeon CPU they support, list me the date and price of these CPU when they were new and typical price used now". How long before I get twelve ads along with paid vendors recommendations? > what if the current prices really are unsustainable and the thing goes 10x? Where does this idea come from? We know how much it costs to run LLMs. It's not like we're waiting to find out. AI companies aren't losing money on API tokens. What could possibly happen to make prices go 10x when they're already running at a profit? Claude Max might be a different story, but AI is going to get cheaper to run. Not randomly 10x for the same models. From what I've read, every major AI player is losing a (lot) of money on running LLMs, even just with inference. It's hard to say for sure because they don't publish the financials (or if they do, it tends to be obfuscated), but if the screws start being turned on investment dollars they not only have to increase the price of their current offerings (2x cost wouldn't shock me), but some of them also need a (massive) influx of capital to handle things like datacenter build obligations (10s of billions of dollars). So I don't think it's crazy to think that prices might go up quite a bit. We've already seen waves of it, like last summer when Cursor suddenly became a lot more expensive (or less functional, depending on your perspective) > From what I've read, every major AI player is losing a (lot) of money on running LLMs, even just with inference. > It's hard to say for sure because they don't publish the financials (or if they do, it tends to be obfuscated) Yeah, exactly. So how the hell the bloggers you read know AI players are losing money? Are they whistleblowers? Or they're pulling numbers out of their asses? Your choice. Dario Amodei has said that their models actually have a good return, even when accounting for training costs [0]. They lose money because of R&D, training the next bigger models, and I assume also investment in other areas like data centers. Sam Altman has made similar statements, and Chinese companies also often serve their models very cheaply. All of this makes me believe them when they say they are profitable on API usage. Usage on the plans is a bit more unknown. Their whole company has to be profitable, or at least not run out of money/investors. If you have no cash you can't just point to one part of your business as being profitable, given that it will quickly become hopelessly out-of-date when other models overtake it. Yeah, that’s the whole game they’re playing. Compete until they can’t raise more and then they will start cutting costs and introducing new revenue sources like ads. They spend money on growth and new models. At some point that will slow and then they’ll start to spend less on R&D and training. Competition means some may lose, but models will continue to be served. This is my understanding as well. If GPT made money the companies that run them would be publicly traded? Furthermore, companies which are publicly traded show that overall the products are not economical. Meta and MSFT are great examples of this, though they have recently seen opposite sides of investors appraising their results. Notably, OpenAI and MSFT are more closely linked than any other Mag7 companies with an AI startup. https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2025/11/10/openai-spe... Going public is not a trivial thing for a company to do. You may want to bring in additional facts to support your thesis. Sam Altman is on record saying that OpenAI is profitable on inference. He might be lying, but it seems an unlikely thing to lie about. Where did u get this notion from? you must not be old enough to know how subscription services play out. Ask your parents about their internet or mobile billings. Or the very least check Azures, AWS, Netflix historical pricing. Heck we were spoiled by “memory is cheap” but here we are today wasting it at every expense as prices keep skyrocketing (ps they ain’t coming back down). If you can’t see the shift to forceful subscriptions via technologies guised as “security” ie. secure boot and the monopolistic distribution (Apple, Google, Amazon) or the OEM, you’re running with blinders. Computings future as it’s heading will be closed ecosystems that are subscription serviced, mobile only. They’ll nickel and dime users for every nuanced freedom of expression they can. Is it crazy to correlate the price of memory to our ability to localize LLM? > Ask your parents about their internet or mobile billings. Or the very least check Azures, AWS, Netflix historical pricing. None of these went 10x. Actually the internet went 0.0001~0.001x for me in terms of bits/money. I lived through dial-up era. > what if the current prices really are unsustainable and the thing goes 10x? What if a thermonuclear war breaks out? What's your backup plan for this scenario? I genuinely can't tell which is more likely to happen in the next decade. If I have to guess I'll say war. Seems much more likely the cost will go down 99%. With open source models and architectural innovations, something like Claude will run on a local machine for free. How much RAM and SSD will be needed by future local inference, to be competitive with present cloud inference? I asked Gemini deep research to project when that will likely happen based on historical precedent. It guessed October 2027. > AI-native. No installation wizard; Claude Code guides setup. No monitoring dashboard; ask Claude what's happening. No debugging tools; describe the problem, Claude fixes it. > Skills over features. Contributors shouldn't add features (e.g. support for Telegram) to the codebase. Instead, they contribute claude code skills like /add-telegram that transform your fork. I’m interested to see how this model pans out. I can see benefits (don’t carry complexity you don’t need) and costs (how do I audit the generated code?). But it seems pretty clear that things will move in this direction in ‘26 with all the vibe coding that folks are enjoying. I do wonder if the end state is more like a very rich library of composable high-order abstractions, with Skills for how to use them - rather than raw skills with instructions for how to lossily reconstruct those things. I think the more interesting question is were tools the right abstraction. What is the implication of having only a single "shell" tool. Should the infinite possibilities to few happen by the AI having limited tools or should whatever the shell calls have the limitations applied there. Tools in a way are redundant. One of the things that makes Clawdbot great is the allow all permissions to do anything. Not sure how those external actions with damaging consequences get sandboxed with this. Apple containers have been great especially that each of them maps 1:1 to a dedicated lightweight VM. Except for a bug or two that appeared in the early releases, things seem to be working out well. I believe not a lot of projects are leveraging it. A general code execution sandbox for AI code or otherwise that used Apple containers is https://github.com/instavm/coderunner It can be hooked to Claude code and others. > One of the things that makes Clawdbot great is the allow all permissions to do anything. Is this materially different than giving all files on your system 777 permissions? > Is this materially different than giving all files on your system 777 permissions? Yes, because I can't read or modify your files over the internet just because you chmod'ed them to 777. But with Clawdbot, I can! It's vastly different. It's more (exactly?) like pulling a .sh file hosted on someone else's website and running it as root, except the contents of the file are generated by a LLM, no one reads them, and the owner of the website can change them without your knowledge. That was my line to the CS lab supervisor for handing me the superuser password. Guess what? He didn’t budge. Probably a good thing. Lesson - never trust a sophomore who can’t even trust themselves (to get overly excited and throw caution to the wind). Clawdbot is a 100 sophomores knocking on your door asking for the keys. > found it useful but running it scares https://maordayanofficial.medium.com/the-sovereign-ai-securi... This look nice! I was curious about being allowed to use a Claude Pro/Max subscription vs an API key, since there's been so much buzz about that lately, so I went looking for a solid answer. Thankfully the official Agent SDK Quickstart guide says that you can: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart In particular, this bit: "After installing Claude Code onto your machine, run claude in your terminal and follow the prompts to authenticate. The SDK will use this authentication automatically." But their docs also say: > Unless previously approved, Anthropic does not allow third party developers to offer claude.ai login or rate limits for their products, including agents built on the Claude Agent SDK. Please use the API key authentication methods described in this document instead. Which I have interpreted means that you can’t use your Claude code subscription with the agent SDK, only API tokens. I really wish Anthropic would make it clear (and allow us to use our subscriptions with other tools). Didn't Thariq make it clear three weeks ago when they shut down 3rd party tool access and the OpenCode users were upset? > Third-party harnesses using Claude subscriptions create problems for users and are prohibited by our Terms of Service. OP here. Yes! This was a big motivation for me to try and build this. Nervous Anthropic is gonna shut down my account for using Clawdbot. This project uses the Agents SDK so it should be kosher in regards to terms of service. I couldn't figure out how to get the SDK running inside the containers to properly use the authenticated session from the host machine so I went with a hacky way of injecting the oauth token into the container environment. It still should be above board for TOS but it's the one security flaw that I know about (malicious person in a WhatsApp group with you can prompt inject the agent to share the oauth key). If anyone can help out with getting the authenticated session to work properly with the agents running in containers it would be much appreciated. I went down this rabbit hole a bit recently trying to use claude inside fence[0] and it seems that on macOS, claude stores this token inside Keychain. I'm not sure there's a way to expose that to a container... my guess would be no, especially since it seems the container is Linux, and also because keeping the Keychain out of reach of containers seems like it would be paramount. But someone might know better! True. There’s a setting for Claude code though where you can add apiKeyHelper which is a script you add that gets the token for Claude Code. I imagine you can use that but haven’t quite figured out how to wire it up Wow, thanks for posting that, news to me! In this case I don’t understand why there was a whole brouhaha with OpenClaw and the like - I guess they were invoking it without the official SDK? Because this makes it seem like if you have the sub you can build any agentic thing you like and still use your subscription, as long as you can install and login to Claude code on the machine running it. Tons of chatter on Twitter making it sound like you'll get permabanned for doing this but... 1) how would they know if my requests are originating from Claude Code vs. OpenClaw? 2) how are we violating... anything? I'm working within my usage limits... $70 or whatever to check if there's milk... just use your Claude Max subscription. > how would they know if my requests are originating from Claude Code vs. OpenClaw How wouldn't they know? Claude Code is proprietary they can put whatever telemetry they want in there. > how are we violating... anything? I'm working within my usage limits... It's well known that Claude code is heavily discounted compared to market API rates. The best interpretation of this is that it's a kind of marketing for their API. If you are not using Claude code for what it's intended for, then it's violating at least the spirit of that deal. The Claude Code client adds system prompts and makes a bunch of calls to analytics/telemetry endpoints so it's certainly feasible for them to tell, if they inspect the content of the requests and do any correlation between those services. And apparently it's violating the terms of service. Is it fair and above board for them to ban people? idk, it feels pretty blatantly like control for the sake of control, or control for the sake of lock-in, or those analytics/telemetry contain something awfully juicy, because they're already getting the entire prompt. It's their service to run as they wish, but it's not a pro-customer move and I think it's priming people to jump ship if another model takes the lead. Was there a brouhaha with OpenClaw or was that with OpenCode? It was with OpenCode, but a LOT of the commentariat is insisting that running OpenClaw through subscription creds instead of API is out of TOS and will get you banhammered. I think you’re right and it was OpenCode. The semantic collisions are going to becpme more of a problem in the coming Cambrian explosion of software Am I correct that after cloning down the project, you open the directory in Claude Code, then "execute" a markdown file instructing a nondeterministic LLM to set everything up for you in natural language? Posthog is doing this now for project setup Not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic but isn't Posthog patient zero of Sha1-Hulud 2.0? I feel like a lot of non technical people who are vibe coding or vibe using these models, focus on hallucinations and believe that as the hallucinations are reduced in benchmarks, and over estimate their ability to create safe prompts that will keep these models in line. I think most people fail to estimate the real threat that malicious prompts can cause because it is not that common, its like when credit cards were launched, cc fraud and the various ways it could be perpetrated followed not soon after. The real threats aren’t visible yet but rest assured there are actors working to take advantage and many unfortunate examples will be seen before general awareness and precaution will prevail…. The idea of avoiding config files, and having the config be getting your agent to modify its own codebase, is fascinating. My gut reaction says that I don't like it, but it is such an interesting idea to think about. Interesting choice to use native Apple Containers over Docker. I assume this is to keep the footprint minimal on a Mac Mini without the overhead of the Docker VM, but does this limit the agent's ability to run standard Linux tooling? Or are you relying on the AI to just figure out the BSD/macOS equivalents of standard commands? [flagged] If only there were some way to answer your own question. Maybe with some kind of engine that searches. Not sure if it's intended, but Apple Container is a microvm, providing mich better isolation than containers (while retaining the familiar interface) "much better isolation than containers" If you've got an exploit for docker / linux containers, please share it with the class. What I'm saying is that in practice, containers and VMs have both been quite secure. Also, you can configure docker to run microvms too https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container... Thanks! Was hoping someone would do something more sane like this. Openclaw is very useful, but like you I share the sentiment of it being terrifying, even before you introduce the social network aspect. My Mac mini is currently literally switched off for this very reason. For anyone else worried about running openclaw, in my case I just bought openclaw its Mac mini and I gave openclaw its own accounts including GitHub. It makes many of the security concerns moot. Of course, I could go further and give openclaw its own internet access as well. I like the idea of a smaller version of OpenClaw. Minor nitpick, it looks like about 2500 lines of typescript (I am on a mobile device, so my LOC estimate may be off). Also, Apple container looks really interesting. Or is this just so hastily thrown together that the Quick Start is a hallucination? That's not a facetious question, given this project's declared raison d'etre is security and the subtle implication that OpenClaw is an insecure unreviewed pile of slop. Fixed, thanks. Claude Code likes to insert itself and anthropic everywhere. If it somehow wasn't abundantly clear: this is a vibe coded weekend project by a single developer (me). It's rough around the edges but it fits my needs (talking with claude code that's mounted on my obsidian vault and easily scheduling cron jobs through whatsapp). And I feel a lot better running this than a +350k LOC project that I can't even begin to wrap my head around how it works. This is not supposed to be something other people run as is, but hopefully a solid starting point for creating your own custom setup. Claude hallucinated that repo here in this commit https://github.com/gavrielc/nanoclaw/commit/dbf39a9484d9c66b... I like that Claude's hypothesis was that Anthropic created openclaw and this anti-openclaw :) > This is the anti-[OpenClaw](https://github.com/anthropics/openclaw). To be honest, when I see many vibecoded apps, I just build my own duplicate with Claude Code. It's not that useful to use someone else's vibecode. The idea is enough, or the evidence that it works for someone else means I can just build it myself with Claude Code and I can make it specific to my needs. Yes exactly! Even non vibe coded libraries I think are losing their value as the cost of writing and maintaining your code goes to zero. Supply chain attacks are gone, no risk of license changes. No bloat from code you don't use. The code is the documentation and the configuration. The vibes are the package manager.
That's why I like this version over openclaw. I can fork it as a starting point or just give it to Claude for inspiration but either way I'm getting something tailored exactly to me. If you run openclaw on a spare laptop or VM and give it read only access to whatever it needs, doesn’t that eliminate most of the risk? If you're letting it communicate with the outside world, you risk the leak and abuse of anything sensitive in the data it has access to. A personal assistant that runs in the standard cloud (anthropic in this case) is madness. That‘s the hill I‘m willing to die on. Run it locally or use a cloud provider you can deeply trust. Can you use MCP tools? I saw that with open claw they moved away from that which I personally didn't like but I somewhat like the idea of not using MCP as much as it is being hyped. It's certainly helpful for some things, but at the same time - I would rather improved CLI tools get created that can be used by humans and llm tools alike. Can we start putting disclaimers beside the title on AI-generated projects? Extremely fatiguing to read through it and realize it’s mostly LLM slop. It blows my mind that this wasn't the thought process going in. Thank you for doing this! Hackernews needs a mute keywords feature. Clawd/molt-slop is mass AI psychosis on steroids. If only there was some sort of thing that would help you build that for yourself. The singularity, but instead successive exponential improvement, its excessive exponential slop which passes the Turing test for programmers. what's the difference between this and just exposing opencode running in colima or whatever through tailscale? I got the impression that Clawdbot adds the headless browser (does it?) and that's the value. Otherwise even "nano"claw seems like uneccessary bloat for me.
hebejebelus - 9 hours ago
jimminyx - 8 hours ago
furyofantares - 4 hours ago
nialse - 2 hours ago
_zoltan_ - 43 minutes ago
vasco - an hour ago
figassis - 39 minutes ago
vasco - 12 minutes ago
codeforclout - an hour ago
hebejebelus - 8 hours ago
anavat - 2 hours ago
yunohn - 23 minutes ago
jofzar - 6 hours ago
charcircuit - an hour ago
iterateoften - 9 hours ago
muyuu - 35 minutes ago
101008 - 9 hours ago
hebejebelus - 9 hours ago
isodev - an hour ago
raincole - 2 hours ago
Nevermark - an hour ago
popcorncowboy - 8 hours ago
charcircuit - 43 minutes ago
naruhodo - 14 minutes ago
charcircuit - 9 minutes ago
anabis - 7 hours ago
egeozcan - 6 hours ago
Terretta - 4 hours ago
TacticalCoder - 7 hours ago
spiderice - 7 hours ago
overgard - 6 hours ago
raincole - 2 hours ago
sothatsit - 4 hours ago
aeronaut80 - 3 hours ago
sothatsit - 2 hours ago
hyperadvanced - 5 hours ago
fragmede - 5 hours ago
lemming - 4 hours ago
up-n-atom - 4 hours ago
raincole - 2 hours ago
raincole - 2 hours ago
crystaln - 5 hours ago
walterbell - 3 hours ago
FuckButtons - 6 hours ago
theptip - 2 hours ago
charcircuit - 11 minutes ago
thepoet - 9 hours ago
jckahn - 8 hours ago
the_fall - 7 hours ago
smt88 - 8 hours ago
sheepscreek - 7 hours ago
walterbell - 4 hours ago
At least 42,665 instances are publicly exposed on the internet, with 5,194 instances actively verified as vulnerable through systematic scanning.. The narrative that “running AI locally = security and privacy” is significantly undermined when 93% of deployments are critically vulnerable. Users may lose faith in self-hosted alternatives.. Governments and regulators already scrutinizing AI may use this incident to justify restrictions on self-hosted AI agents, citing security externalities.
dceddia - 8 hours ago
joshstrange - 7 hours ago
ceroxylon - 6 hours ago
jimminyx - 8 hours ago
dceddia - 7 hours ago
gronky_ - 7 hours ago
hebejebelus - 8 hours ago
disillusioned - 8 hours ago
zarzavat - 8 hours ago
dceddia - 7 hours ago
firloop - 8 hours ago
disillusioned - 8 hours ago
hebejebelus - 8 hours ago
prophesi - 3 hours ago
te_chris - 2 hours ago
nsonha - 2 hours ago
narmiouh - 8 hours ago
sothatsit - 4 hours ago
treelover - 9 hours ago
ohyoutravel - 9 hours ago
cadamsdotcom - 8 hours ago
selkin - 6 hours ago
TheDong - 3 hours ago
eskaytwo - 7 hours ago
chaostheory - 33 minutes ago
mark_l_watson - 9 hours ago
avaer - 9 hours ago
Is this an official Anthropic project? Because that repo doesn't exist. Quick Start
git clone https://github.com/anthropics/nanoclaw.git
jimminyx - 9 hours ago
kklisura - 9 hours ago
mcintyre1994 - 9 hours ago
renewiltord - 9 hours ago
sanex - 5 hours ago
ed_mercer - 7 hours ago
AlexCoventry - 7 hours ago
Tepix - an hour ago
Johnny_Bonk - 9 hours ago
johntash - 8 hours ago
Bnjoroge - 7 hours ago
suprstarrd - 7 hours ago
singular_atomic - 5 hours ago
fragmede - an hour ago
cyanydeez - 9 hours ago
nsonha - 5 hours ago