Using Claude Channels can make it easy to inject prompts and get just the response back without having to identify it in the terminal output or fight with the TUI.
But they're not well designed, and some things just have to go in through the terminal interface like slash commands (i.e. /clear)
It looks like it shouldn’t be an issue… it is just a wrapper around CLI calls to the official Claude code. It would be indistinguishable from the Anthropic side, and it isn’t even doing anything hacky or impersonating the official client.
This is my interpretation as well, Anthropic wants to be in full control of the connection between the client and their servers, and that's compatible with what
I'm trying to do.
And that's the beauty of open source and code. You can share it freely and easily. There's no thing that can be made for everyone.
Maybe some irony is everyone tells me they "just care that it works". Yet it can work and you'll always have the comments like above because it works for the reason it was made but not for things it wasn't made for. But it's open, so modify the code and put in what you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess I should clarify its source available, not "Open Source". There's no license on the project so it's default theirs. But no harm if you're just editing it yourself. @OP should put up some license to let others know how what is allowed and what isn't
Agree on the source-available clarification — this exact
distinction matters on HN and I learned it the hard way recently.
I just went through the licensing decision for my own project
and landed on BSL 1.1 with a 4-year conversion to Apache 2.0.
Framing it as "source-available, auto-converts to Apache 2.0
in 2030" reads as transparent intent rather than "fake open
source."
That said, BSL/FSL really only make sense if you plan to
monetize a hosted version yourself. For wrapper tools like
Claudraband that sit on top of an existing product ecosystem,
MIT or Apache 2.0 might fit better — you're not protecting a
competing SaaS, you're just sharing code.
Opencode too. These tools are already so programmable and embeddable, it's just Claude Code is a sticking point. But maybe it would be useful to provide a unified CLI and Daemon for all of them.
They have ACP servers but they might apply different rate limits or policies if they notice ACP use, while a solution like yours would not trigger that unless it becomes popular enough to specifically detect. It also seems this provides more features them just an ACP server.
https://github.com/ehrlich-b/wingthing - Here's my version of this idea which is agent agnostic. Not exactly the same idea, "sandbox'ed persistent agent", in my case available over the web with xterm.js (though you can also just run locally).
This looks very cool! My concern is just that it's a lot of things bundled in one and I kind of have to trust you for all of them. I would prefer something that puts together a stack of better known components, like a docker compose of agent-sandbox and tailscale or something equivalent, etc ... ideally with each of those swappable.
Can't you just tell your AI tool of choice to just port it? One thing I like about AI is that now I can easily roll my own or take an open-source project and customize it really fast with very little commitment on my end. Instead of everyone having to use the exact same tools, now we can customize it to our liking--at least for now
I’ve made something very similar that is almost backend-agnostic: https://github.com/ayourtch-llm/tttt - and it does auto inject the MCP in case of Claude, but it is trivial to adapt to other backends.
What cursor has learned, very painfully, is that making a complex gui, even with the help of ai, is a lot fucking harder than a cli tool. Anthropic is wisely staying out of that space and sticking to more basic ui’s like cowork.
There is a LOT of work buried in your statement “all it would take”.
All one has to do is look at the evolution of cursor to confirm my statement. Compare v1 of cursor to v3 and see how much more insanely simplified the ui has become in v3 - it’s essentially a glorified cowork interface now
Is that something anyone wants? It seems like being able to plug into other editors works well. What are the experiences people are trying to get but currently can't build because ACP sucks or whatever?
The extra stuff is that you can automate interactions with Claude Code sessions using a CLI (which just tmux send-keys under the hood), an HTTP server, and ACP server (so you can embed claude code in other IDEs), and typescript library. So it's meant to make CC more embeddable in your workflows.
Some people open a claude code session and just talk with it. And some use hooks, custom commands, agent-teams..and so on. You can definitely be a power user. But I’m sure whether that translates to actual “power” is up for debate.
44 comments
But they're not well designed, and some things just have to go in through the terminal interface like slash commands (i.e.
/clear)This needs to support at least Gemini CLI, Codex and OpenCode as well, preferably by being generic as much as possible.
Maybe some irony is everyone tells me they "just care that it works". Yet it can work and you'll always have the comments like above because it works for the reason it was made but not for things it wasn't made for. But it's open, so modify the code and put in what you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess I should clarify its source available, not "Open Source". There's no license on the project so it's default theirs. But no harm if you're just editing it yourself. @OP should put up some license to let others know how what is allowed and what isn't
I just went through the licensing decision for my own project and landed on BSL 1.1 with a 4-year conversion to Apache 2.0. Framing it as "source-available, auto-converts to Apache 2.0 in 2030" reads as transparent intent rather than "fake open source."
That said, BSL/FSL really only make sense if you plan to monetize a hosted version yourself. For wrapper tools like Claudraband that sit on top of an existing product ecosystem, MIT or Apache 2.0 might fit better — you're not protecting a competing SaaS, you're just sharing code.
https://github.com/zed-industries/codex-acp https://geminicli.com/docs/cli/acp-mode/
In fact Codex, in OpenAI fashion, have their own protocol as well:
https://developers.openai.com/codex/app-server
Opencode too. These tools are already so programmable and embeddable, it's just Claude Code is a sticking point. But maybe it would be useful to provide a unified CLI and Daemon for all of them.
> they might apply different rate limits or policies if they notice ACP use
Is there any evidence that supports this claim?
I did something similar with gemini cli by just wrapping it in tmux and building some extensions.[0]
Eventually that wasnt enough so I ended up forking it and adding REST endpoints to inject commands and read the screen.[1]
Your solution is much cleaner! I'll probably replace mine with it. Thanks for sharing!
[0] https://github.com/stevenAthompson/self-command
[1] https://github.com/stevenAthompson/gemini-cli-remote-control
All it would take is implementing their own forked version of VSCode (like Cursor did) and making Claude the default choice.
Obviously I'm simplifying here, but they definitely have the capability to do it.
There is a LOT of work buried in your statement “all it would take”.
All one has to do is look at the evolution of cursor to confirm my statement. Compare v1 of cursor to v3 and see how much more insanely simplified the ui has become in v3 - it’s essentially a glorified cowork interface now
You'd think so, but I guess they don't.
And, I guess, it's headless in the sense that you can't attach to it even if you want to. I get what you meant now.