Some of the other aspects of the project are quite interesting, I particularly liked https://github.com/ghostwright/shadow I think this has potential, but I am skeptical right now.
What is the actual cost of this? Can you share your real burn rate through using this, I sort of wanna try but don't want my API Key to go bananas because the agent decided it needed XYZ for "it" and didn't check with me
I get the appeal for the separate "identity" with email and everything for the agent, but then, if it has little to no supervision, what's the liability extent when it goes rogue? Say it DDoS someone, it exploits something, it does damage, is this like your child/minor and you're the parent/guardian?
So if I understand this it is an OpenClaw type system but based on the Claude Code Agent SDK? And they suggest installing it on a VM? Or is there more to it?
OpenClaw runs on your machine or an ephemeral sandbox. Each session starts fresh. Phantom gets its own dedicated VM that persists. The ClickHouse instance it built three weeks ago is still running and queryable.
OpenClaw spends a lot of tokens on screen understanding and vision loops. About 60% of its skills are basic macOS-level computer use (clicking, typing, reading the screen). Phantom skips that entirely and uses the Claude Agent SDK directly, so it gets full shell, file system, git, web search, and MCP tools natively without the token overhead of parsing screenshots.
The biggest difference is probably dynamic MCP. Phantom registers its own MCP tools at runtime, and they persist across restarts. It built a ClickHouse REST API, registered it as a tool, and now any Claude Code session or other agent that connects to it can query that data. It builds its own capabilities and exposes them as an API.
It also has persistent vector memory across sessions (Qdrant, local), a self-evolution engine where a different model validates every config change, and we built a companion tool called Specter (https://github.com/ghostwright/specter) that provisions VMs with DNS, TLS, and systemd in under 90 seconds, so deploying a new Phantom is genuinely three commands.
Both are good projects, different approaches. OpenClaw does computer use well. Phantom is a persistent co-worker that lives on its own machine and compounds over time.
> OpenClaw runs on your machine or an ephemeral sandbox. Each session starts fresh. Phantom gets its own dedicated VM that persists
Yeah like any claw type system will be if you install it on a VM. I think the self-tooling thing is interesting but you'll gain by emphasizing that over the VM thing - at least with a technical audience.
Some of the other aspects of the project are quite interesting, I particularly liked https://github.com/ghostwright/shadow I think this has potential, but I am skeptical right now.
What is the actual cost of this? Can you share your real burn rate through using this, I sort of wanna try but don't want my API Key to go bananas because the agent decided it needed XYZ for "it" and didn't check with me
I get the appeal for the separate "identity" with email and everything for the agent, but then, if it has little to no supervision, what's the liability extent when it goes rogue? Say it DDoS someone, it exploits something, it does damage, is this like your child/minor and you're the parent/guardian?
So if I understand this it is an OpenClaw type system but based on the Claude Code Agent SDK? And they suggest installing it on a VM? Or is there more to it?
Different in a few fundamental ways:
OpenClaw runs on your machine or an ephemeral sandbox. Each session starts fresh. Phantom gets its own dedicated VM that persists. The ClickHouse instance it built three weeks ago is still running and queryable.
OpenClaw spends a lot of tokens on screen understanding and vision loops. About 60% of its skills are basic macOS-level computer use (clicking, typing, reading the screen). Phantom skips that entirely and uses the Claude Agent SDK directly, so it gets full shell, file system, git, web search, and MCP tools natively without the token overhead of parsing screenshots.
The biggest difference is probably dynamic MCP. Phantom registers its own MCP tools at runtime, and they persist across restarts. It built a ClickHouse REST API, registered it as a tool, and now any Claude Code session or other agent that connects to it can query that data. It builds its own capabilities and exposes them as an API.
It also has persistent vector memory across sessions (Qdrant, local), a self-evolution engine where a different model validates every config change, and we built a companion tool called Specter (https://github.com/ghostwright/specter) that provisions VMs with DNS, TLS, and systemd in under 90 seconds, so deploying a new Phantom is genuinely three commands.
Both are good projects, different approaches. OpenClaw does computer use well. Phantom is a persistent co-worker that lives on its own machine and compounds over time.
> OpenClaw runs on your machine or an ephemeral sandbox. Each session starts fresh. Phantom gets its own dedicated VM that persists
Yeah like any claw type system will be if you install it on a VM. I think the self-tooling thing is interesting but you'll gain by emphasizing that over the VM thing - at least with a technical audience.
> Nobody asked it to build any of this. It identified analytics as useful and built the entire stack.
When I read stuff like this I am not sure how to feel.
[dead]
Not sure I'd celebrate finding a library with 3 Github stars. Shouldn't the story there be vetting for quality or security?
I think the intent was to say it has enough "intelligence" to find a needle in a haystack and that the "vetting" is assumed
That said, my initial reaction was the same and if the human wasn't involved and did not do its due diligence I'm right there with you
[dead]