Key takeaways
- 574 GitHub stars as of June 11, 2026 — a net decline from the 749 recorded by OSS Insight in early April and the 899 this site's April hub recorded, an unusual downward trajectory consistent with a star purge or recount
- Tiered model routing is the signature idea: professional work gets Opus/Sonnet, routine work gets Flash-Lite, with a project-claimed 30x cost reduction versus running everything on Opus
- No commits since April 25, 2026 (~47 days as of this writing) and only two visible commit authors — the project's biggest open question is whether it is still maintained
FAQ
What is ClawCompany?
ClawCompany is an open-source, locally run "AI company OS" that organizes AI agents into predefined company roles (38 roles, 6 templates), positions the human as Chairman, and routes tasks to different LLMs by complexity. MIT licensed, installed via npx clawcompany.
How much does ClawCompany cost?
The software is free (MIT, self-hosted). You pay model API costs; the project claims roughly $0.06–$0.12 per completed mission with its tiered routing, versus several dollars on premium models alone — project figures, not independently verified.
What models does ClawCompany use?
It routes by task complexity — Claude Opus/Sonnet for professional work like CEO-level decomposition, Gemini Flash-Lite for routine work — and an April 2026 commit added GPT-5.5 as an Opus fallback.
How is ClawCompany different from Paperclip?
Paperclip gives you raw org-chart orchestration primitives and lets you build your own company; ClawCompany ships pre-built role libraries and company templates with cost-tiered model routing out of the box — but with a fraction of the adoption and, as of June 2026, stalled development activity.
Executive Summary
ClawCompany is an open-source "AI company OS": you act as Chairman, and an autonomous AI team — drawn from 38 predefined roles across 6 company templates — decomposes missions into work streams, executes them, and delivers finished output, running locally via npx clawcompany.[1] Its signature idea is tiered model routing: professional work (strategy, decomposition, complex analysis) goes to Claude Opus/Sonnet, routine work goes to Gemini Flash-Lite, which the project claims is "30× cheaper than all-Opus."[1] A 4-layer memory system (session context, compressed archives, company knowledge, Chairman preferences) injects roughly 400 tokens of context per mission so the company "remembers everything — locally."[2]
Two things demand a clear-eyed note. First, development has stalled: the last push to the repository was April 25, 2026 — about 47 days of silence as of this writing — with only two visible commit authors across recent history.[3][4] Second, the star count has gone backwards: the GitHub API reports 574 stars as of June 11, 2026, while OSS Insight's early-April snapshot recorded 749 and this site's April 2026 category hub recorded 899.[3][5] A net decline of this size usually indicates a GitHub star purge (removal of bot/fake stars) or a recount; the cause cannot be determined from public data, but the discrepancy is real and worth flagging in a category OSS Insight already criticized for star counts that "reflect marketing hype rather than real deployment."[5]
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| Creator | Claw-Company GitHub organization; no disclosed team or company |
| Created | March 14, 2026[3] |
| Funding | Not publicly disclosed |
| GitHub Stars | 574 (as of June 11, 2026; down from earlier counts)[3] |
| License | MIT[3] |
| Last push | April 25, 2026[3] |
Product Overview
ClawCompany installs as a local TypeScript/Node.js application. You pick a company template, optionally customize roles, then issue missions as Chairman. A leader agent (CEO) recalls past missions and your preferences from memory, decomposes the work into streams — researchers gather data, analysts build models, writers format reports — and returns a completed deliverable.[1] Recent releases added document export to PPT/Word/PDF (v0.60.0) and a subagent tool (v0.53.0).[4]
It is independent software, not built on OpenClaw — the README instead positions OpenClaw as an alternative requiring more configuration, claiming an example mission completes for $0.06 versus "$0.40+" on OpenClaw.[1]
Key Capabilities
| Capability | Detail |
|---|---|
| Company templates | 6: Default/General (9 roles), YC Startup (7), Trading Desk (7), Research Lab (5), Software Dev (6), Harness Builder (3) — 38 roles total[1] |
| Tiered model routing | Opus/Sonnet for professional work, Flash-Lite for routine; project-claimed 30x cost reduction vs all-Opus[1] |
| 4-layer memory | Layer 1 session context, Layer 2 compressed archives, Layer 3 auto-categorized company knowledge, Layer 4 Chairman preferences; ~400 tokens injected per mission[2] |
| Agent tools | 9 built-in: Web Search, Web Fetch, Price Feed, Browser Use, Shell, Filesystem, HTTP, Code Interpreter, Memory Search[1] |
| Human-in-loop | Chairman model — the human initiates missions and reviews outputs, retaining executive authority[1] |
Technical Architecture
Fully local and self-hosted — there is no cloud service or account. Requires Node.js 20+:[1]
npx clawcompany
Model access is multi-provider: Claude Opus/Sonnet for high-tier work, Gemini Flash-Lite for routine tasks, and — in the final commit before the quiet period — GPT-5.5 wired in as an Opus 4.7 fallback ("providers: add GPT-5.5 as Opus 4.7 fallback," April 25, 2026).[4]
Key Technical Details
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Deployment | Local CLI/app via npx clawcompany, Node.js 20+[1] |
| Language | TypeScript[3] |
| Models | Claude Opus/Sonnet, Gemini Flash-Lite, GPT-5.5 fallback — routed by task tier[1][4] |
| Latest release | v0.61.0 (April 17, 2026 — Opus 4.7 with auto-migration)[4] |
| Open Source | Yes — MIT[3] |
Strengths
- Cost optimization as architecture — Tiered model routing was the first serious attempt in this category to treat model cost as a first-class design concern; the principle (match model capability to task complexity) holds even as the specific 30x figure is a project claim[1]
- Fastest time-to-deploy in the category — 38 predefined roles across 6 templates mean you pick a structure and go, rather than designing an org chart from scratch[1]
- Local-first memory — The 4-layer memory system keeps company knowledge and Chairman preferences on your machine, with a lean ~400-token injection per mission rather than stuffing context windows[2]
- Clean issue tracker — 1 open issue as of June 11, 2026, suggesting the small user base isn't hitting (or reporting) breakage[3]
- MIT licensed — Permissive license, fully self-hosted, no account or vendor dependency[3]
Cautions
- Development has stalled — No pushes since April 25, 2026, roughly 47 days as of this writing. For a project that was six weeks old when it went quiet, this is the dominant risk factor[3]
- Star count declined — 574 stars in June versus 749 in OSS Insight's April snapshot (and 899 in this site's April hub) — consistent with a star purge or recount, and a caution sign in a category already flagged for inflated star counts[3][5]
- Effectively a single-maintainer project — Recent commit history shows only two authors: the ClawCompany organization account and an account named "claude," with no disclosed team, company, or funding behind either[4]
- Unverified cost claims, inconsistently stated — The README cites $0.06 per mission; the website cites ~$0.12 per mission (5 roles, 4 models) versus $3.50 all-premium. Both support the "30x" framing, but neither is independently benchmarked and they don't match each other[1][2]
- Pre-1.0 software — Latest release is v0.61.0; export, memory compression, and subagent features all landed within weeks of the activity stopping[4]
- Minimal community footprint — OSS Insight gave it minimal discussion next to Paperclip, and no substantive third-party reviews, HN threads, or critical coverage were found as of June 2026[5]
Pricing & Licensing
| Tier | Price | Includes |
|---|---|---|
| Open source | Free | Full platform, all 38 roles and 6 templates, self-hosted[1] |
Licensing model: MIT — permissive open source, no paid tier, no managed cloud, no commercial entity to buy support from.[3]
Hidden costs: Model API spend (Anthropic, Google, OpenAI keys) is the real cost; the project's own per-mission estimates range from $0.06 (README) to ~$0.12 (website), unverified.[1][2]
Competitive Positioning
Direct Competitors
| Competitor | Differentiation |
|---|---|
| Paperclip | The category leader (69k+ stars, active biweekly releases) — raw org-chart orchestration primitives, agent-agnostic, build-your-own-company. ClawCompany trades that flexibility for pre-built templates and cost routing, but Paperclip kept shipping while ClawCompany went quiet |
| Oh-My-ClaudeCode | Wraps Claude Code with multi-agent team coordination; locked to one agent ecosystem where ClawCompany is multi-model |
| Edict | Tang Dynasty-inspired governance with an institutional AI veto layer; strongest safety model in the category, built on OpenClaw |
| MindStudio | Commercial no-code visual builder for non-technical operators; SaaS where ClawCompany is local and free |
When to Choose ClawCompany Over Alternatives
- You want a working multi-role AI company in one command, not an orchestration framework to configure
- Model API cost is your binding constraint and tiered routing matters more to you than ecosystem maturity
- You require fully local operation — memory, preferences, and company knowledge never leave your machine
- You are comfortable adopting (or forking) a project that may no longer be maintained
Ideal Customer Profile
Best fit:
- Solo operators and tinkerers who want pre-built role templates (research, trading-desk analysis, software dev) with minimal setup
- Cost-sensitive experimenters running many missions on a budget
- Developers studying tiered model routing or 4-layer memory design — the codebase is a compact MIT-licensed reference implementation
Poor fit:
- Anyone who needs an actively maintained dependency — 47 days of silence makes this disqualifying for production use
- Teams wanting vendor support, SLAs, or an identifiable company behind the software
- Users who need deep org-chart customization, multi-company portfolios, or a broad agent-adapter ecosystem (choose Paperclip)
Viability Assessment
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Financial Health | No disclosed funding, team, or revenue model; free OSS with no commercial entity |
| Market Position | Fourth-tier in its category — 574 stars versus Paperclip's ~70k; minimal third-party coverage[3][5] |
| Innovation Pace | Was rapid (v0.36.0 → v0.61.0 in roughly six weeks), then stopped entirely on April 25, 2026[4][3] |
| Community/Ecosystem | 72 forks, 62 watchers, 2 visible commit authors, 1 open issue — small and quiet[3][4] |
| Long-term Outlook | Poor unless activity resumes; the ideas (tiered routing, template libraries) are likely to outlive the project itself |
ClawCompany shipped genuinely good ideas fast — OSS Insight measured it at 39 stars/day in its first 19 days — and then went silent six weeks in.[5] The repository is not archived, so a return is possible, but every viability signal (commit activity, star trajectory, maintainer count) currently points the wrong direction.[3]
Bottom Line
ClawCompany is the category's best argument that cost routing belongs in the architecture — and its cautionary tale about single-maintainer velocity. The template-maximalist approach (38 roles, 6 companies, one command) delivered the fastest out-of-box experience in the agent-company space, but the project has not seen a commit since April 25, 2026, and its star count has declined rather than grown.
Recommended for: experimenters who want a free, local, template-driven AI company and accept abandonment risk; developers mining it for tiered-routing and memory-design patterns.
Not recommended for: anyone building on it for real work — the maintenance signal is the worst in the category.
Outlook: quiet, possibly dead. The tiered model routing idea is already being validated elsewhere in the category; whether ClawCompany itself revives is a question only its anonymous maintainer can answer. Re-check the commit log before adopting.
Research by Ry Walker Research • methodology