# CodeHerder vs Stoneforge

Stoneforge vs CodeHerder: sourced and dated. Stoneforge is the closest open-source thesis to CodeHerder's own, earlier on the same path.

Source: https://codeherder.com/compare/stoneforge/

Compare · Tier A

An open-source (Apache-2.0) agent orchestrator: a Director plans, Workers execute in isolated worktrees, and Stewards test, merge, or hand back for review.

Verified against the vendor's own published materials.

## What Stoneforge actually ships

- A Director (strategic planner) routing to Workers (spawned per task, isolated git worktree each), reviewed by Stewards (automated test-run plus squash-merge on pass, or handoff-with-review-comments on fail)
- A background dispatch daemon and agent pools with per-type concurrency limits
- Multi-provider support (Claude Code default, OpenCode, or Codex), authenticating through the provider's own CLI with no API keys stored inside Stoneforge
- Event-sourced dual storage: SQLite as the cache, JSONL as the source of truth

## Where it's strong

- Fully open source (Apache-2.0) with a clean, git-worktree-per-worker architecture close in spirit to CodeHerder's own
- Its stated problem, merge conflicts, duplicate work, and lack of visibility, reads as independent validation that this is a real category worth solving

## How CodeHerder differs

- CodeHerder has moved further on cost and budget attribution, a device herd spanning multiple machines, cross-agent memory, human collaboration, and organizational (initiative → epic → story) structure, none of which Stoneforge publishes

> Stoneforge is the closest OSS technical thesis to CodeHerder's own; the distinction is how far each has built past the shared starting point.

Capability snapshot

## CodeHerder vs Stoneforge, capability by capability

Every row traces to the same source as [the full matrix](https://codeherder.com/compare), where the full legend lives. In short: "not published" means no public evidence was found, not that the feature is absent. Verified as of 2026-08-08.

Capability comparison between CodeHerder and Stoneforge across 20 capabilities, current as of 2026-08-08.

| Capability | CodeHerder | Stoneforge |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Concurrent agents | Published | Published |
| Multi-vendor harnesses | Published | Published |
| Customer-owned machines | Published | Published |
| Multi-machine routing | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Automatic work assignment | Published | Published |
| Capability-based routing | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Atomic claiming | Published | Published |
| Dependencies | Published | Published |
| Custom workflows | Published | Partial (one fixed pipeline) |
| Server-enforced gates | Published | Published |
| Agent handoffs | Published | Published |
| Persistent shared memory | Published | Partial (JSONL state) |
| Live terminal / view | Published | Published |
| Human takeover / steer | Published | Partial |
| Cost per task | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Cost per stage/model | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Hard $ cap | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Schedules | Published | Not published (as of 2026-08-08) |
| Webhooks / API / CLI | Published | Published |
| Self-host full platform | Published (Enterprise) | Published (OSS) |

## Sources

Verified against Stoneforge's own site as of 2026-08-08.

- Stoneforge's homepage
- Stoneforge's core-concepts docs

[← See every platform on the matrix](https://codeherder.com/compare)