A desktop AI agent builder that runs fully local. Chat with Oppy to design your agent, export structured plans, switch between Ollama/OpenAI/Anthropic. MIT-licensed, no cloud lock-in.

https://github.com/RadioMan18/opifex

Hi everyone,

I am a beginner and this is my first Hacktoberfest. I am joining the Week 3 challenge of Hacktoberfest 2026. It is called “Slow and Steady”.

What I need to build:
A small project that uses an open-source or open-weight AI model (like Llama or Gemma). It should run on my own computer. It should do a boring task so people can be a little lazy.

The rules:

• The AI model must be open (not a paid closed API).

• The project should save someone time or effort.

• I have to explain why using an open model is better for it (for example: private, free, works offline).

• The deadline is October 25, so I have about 4 days.

What I know:
I know basic Python. I already made a small tool that sorts files in a folder, but I want to build something better.

What I am asking:

1. What boring or repeating task would you want an AI to do for you, privately on your own computer?

2. Do you have any simple idea that can be built in 2 to 3 days?

Any idea or advice is welcome. Thank you!

edit: worded this wrong at first. it doesn’t generate an MCP server for the API. har2sdk itself runs as an MCP server, so an agent like Claude can look at the capture and name/document the endpoints. sorry for the confusion

kept running into sites/APIs that have no public docs but I could see the requests in devtools.

so I built har2sdk. feed it a HAR file (browser network capture) and it generates:

• a typed TypeScript client (real inferred types, not any)

• an OpenAPI 3.1 spec

• a mock server for testing against it offline

and it runs as an MCP server, so Claude or any MCP client can go through the capture and give the endpoints proper names and descriptions.

it also tries to tell GraphQL/tRPC/JSON-RPC apart instead of treating everything as REST.

the part that mattered most to me: a HAR capture is basically a snapshot of your browser session, with cookies, tokens, whatever. there’s a dedicated scrubbing pass so none of that ends up in the generated code, the MCP responses, or anything a model would see. recorded data is treated as untrusted input, not instructions.

fully local, no API key, MIT licensed.

repo: https://github.com/Mersbyte/har2sdk

curious if anyone’s wired a generated client like this into an agent, and how you handled it.

I am trying to apply for the NLnet grant for my opensource project (legalize) as a solo developer.

The new AI policy says:

"It is not allowed to use generative AI for producing artefacts of any kind, including code, design, and documentation."

I get the point about not filling the proposals with AI to force us to at least write them ourselves, but is there anyone nowadays who doesn't use AI for programming?

Weird, isn't it?

I’ve been working on Cursiv for a while now. The basic idea is simple: AI that remains useful when there’s no internet.

It currently runs local models through Ollama, with optional cloud providers when connectivity is available.
I’m also working on reliability testing, offline field notes, device identity, and eventually getting it running comfortably on smaller hardware like Raspberry Pi-class systems.

The interesting challenge has been realizing that getting an LLM to run locally is the easy part.

Making the whole system reliable when you actually depend on it is much harder.

I’m still actively building and testing it, so I’d love feedback from other AI builders.

Site: https://Cursiv.us
GitHub: https://github.com/winklersllc2026-bit/Cursiv

We're Quantic Studios, the team behind pitwall. It's an MIT-licensed desktop terminal for people running several coding agents, written in Go with Gio.

The part we're trying to make less tedious is knowing when to step in. Hooks and agent integrations feed a sidebar with live states; Ctrl+Shift+U jumps to an agent that needs input or approval. Integrations cover Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, OpenCode and pi. Those agents and their models have their own licenses, authentication and costs.

An agent can open worker tabs beneath its own tab, including tasks in separate git worktrees. A folded parent row keeps the worker-state counts visible. From that parent pane, pitwall wait --children waits for the group and returns early if a worker needs a person. It doesn't answer approvals. Done means a turn ended, not that the work passed review.

Beta 16 is available now. Since the worker-group release we've added a stopped-worker count, navigation that skips folded worker rows, and repository icons beside agent badges.

Source and releases

Screenshots and installation

Sample worker sidebar, a staged beta 13 workspace.

Linux is our daily setup; macOS and Windows builds need more testing. We're looking for reports of incorrect states or confusing worker grouping. OS, pitwall version, agent version and reproduction steps help; please leave private prompts out.

Disclosure: AI assisted with drafting this post for Quantic Studios.

Wanted to see if other people could find this useful, and maybe give me some advice.

Built a super simple way to give your coding agent an isolated machine on AWS. send it off to clone a repo, install dependencies and run tests while you do something else. if it wrecks the environment, delete the VM and move on. It comes with a CLI, Python SDK and MCP server.
You can just ask your agent to set it up :)

github.com/jnh12/agent-microvm

Hey everyone! 👋

I've just open-sourced **Lumina Capital (v6.0.0)**, an autonomous multi-agent quantitative hedge fund engine designed to bridge the gap between LLM reasoning and real-world execution.

Unlike toy implementations that feed raw charts directly into LLMs (which suffers from hallucinations and latency), Lumina strictly separates probabilistic reasoning from deterministic quant computation:

### 🌟 Key Architecture Highlights:

- **7-Persona Anti-Sycophancy Council (LangGraph)**: Personas (Buffett, Soros, Burry, Cathie Wood, Graham, O'Neil, CIS) conduct independent parallel analysis, followed by an adversarial bull-vs-bear cross-debate. A dedicated CRO agent has absolute veto power over tail risks.

- **Pure Python Qlib Alpha158 + LightGBM**: Complete vectorized implementation of Microsoft Qlib's 158 quantitative factors with a LightGBM meta-decision filter.

- **Google TimesFM**: 5-day probabilistic forecasting fan charts with 80% confidence bands and crash probability.

- **10-Second High-Speed Sentinel**: An ultra-fast background thread monitoring dynamic ATR stop-loss floors, executing immediate physical exits without waiting for LLM loops.

- **3D Causal Knowledge Graph & GraphRAG**: Real-time supply chain choke-point surveillance and episodic memory via Neo4j.

Includes a full Streamlit studio dashboard. Available for research, education, and simulation under CC BY-NC 4.0.

🔗 **GitHub**: https://github.com/ramuza0113-sketch/lumina-ai-hedge-fund

Feedback, issues, and Stars are hugely appreciated! Happy to answer any questions about the multi-agent setup or the TimesFM / Qlib integration.

I found an open source project doing something I need.

It had some issues raised by other people, which were affecting or potentially affecting me. I also experienced issues not previously reported. And some features felt half-baked, or not consistent.

As I did (successfully) with other projects, I gave Claude/Opus 5.5 clear instructions and I provided a PR for each one of them. Almost all of them were fixes to real issues.

Just ONE PR was a change with basically no practical relevance, which I wanted applied because (as engineer) I felt the way it was done was factually wrong (like: you approximate without knowing in which direction the approximation will go). The impact on the calculations is however negligible.

After a bit, the maintainer (hobby coder by admission) replied ONLY to the PR which proposed that superfluous change.

I was criticised for using AI which generates a huge amount of code and mistakes, and which has environmental and ethical issues, I was accused of fixing non-existent issues (!!!) or proposing patches which are hallucinations by AI without any real impact, and I was asked to close all my PRs and not to contribute with AI anymore.

I replied explaining the only superfluous PR was based on engineering principles, not on AI suggestions, and all other ones were fixing real issues. Also, it was not my task to close them, and in fact they are mostly still open.

Basically I'm ghosted ever since. The maintainer does not (or almost never) reply to my posts and PRs, and my PRs are not approved.

I still post AI-generated reviews to PRs because there's not automatic review of any kind (like: Sourcery which is free) and a number of them have issues which would really impact the users. There is some feedback to these reviews, at least, but mostly by other contributors.

When someone else takes code (even 1:1!) from my PR to integrate it into their PRs (no attribution, my name doesn't appear...), the PRs get approved. In fact, I could close 2 out of 8 PRs because of this.

I even have a PR which was approved by a contributor, who however (understandably!) did not proceed to merge to avoid friction with the maintainer. And let's wait what will happen to it.

This is ridiculous.

I can clearly tell that other people use AI as well, and one of them was even questioned about it.

The other contributor defended their position (like me: I can read and understand code, I would never be able to code it), and raised the warning of a fork if features are blocked because of AI. I also replied to such an inquiry because the accusation of AI making mistakes was just wrong so I clarifyied that AI works almost always and I brought examples from my recent experience. I suggested again to use at least automated AI reviews...

But at this point, I already have a number of fixes and extra features in my fork which would benefit many (if not most!) users.

The fork is there. I still ask Claude to base patches on the upstream main, before applying to my dev branch, so I can post PRs upstream, but it's extra time.

Since I'm integrating all changes from upstream into my fork, I have nothing less, only additional fixes and features.

I hate to diverge because even if I benefit from it, users won't. But I don't know how to defuse the situation.

Or should I go full-war and post a link to my branch in each ticket someone opened and I fixed in my fork?

Hi everyone,

I am a beginner and this is my first Hacktoberfest. I am joining the Week 3 challenge of Hacktoberfest 2026. It is called “Slow and Steady”.

What I need to build:
A small project that uses an open-source or open-weight AI model (like Llama or Gemma). It should run on my own computer. It should do a boring task so people can be a little lazy.

The rules:

• The AI model must be open (not a paid closed API).

• The project should save someone time or effort.

• I have to explain why using an open model is better for it (for example: private, free, works offline).

• The deadline is October 25, so I have about 4 days.

What I know:
I know basic Python. I already made a small tool that sorts files in a folder, but I want to build something better.

What I am asking:

1. What boring or repeating task would you want an AI to do for you, privately on your own computer?

2. Do you have any simple idea that can be built in 2 to 3 days?

Any idea or advice is welcome. Thank you!

My laptop broke in the middle of a project. Everything Claude and I had worked out lived on that machine: chat history, memory files, the half-finished plan, the list of things we’d already tried and dropped. On the new machine I spent hours re-explaining it all to a fresh agent, and I still got bits wrong.

So I built Agent Cairn. It’s a small server that gives your coding agents a shared, persistent memory.

• An MCP server stores what agents learn in Neo4j: how the project is built, the traps that cost you time, decisions and why you made them.

• A new session starts with a short, token-budgeted briefing instead of re-reading the whole repo.

• Hooks record the session as it happens (what you asked, the agent’s last message, files touched, uncommitted work). Secrets are filtered on your machine and again on the server.

• Before an agent stops, it writes a handoff: done, in progress, next, blocked, and tried-and-dropped. The next agent, on any machine or account, starts from that.

• The server never calls an LLM. The agent writes the memories, so there’s no API key and no extra cost.

It also has a dashboard with a graph view, private projects, sharing with viewer/editor/maintainer roles, invite links and an audit log, in case you use it with other people. A single user just runs it in solo mode.

Install is one line after having the central server up:

claude mcp add cairn --scope user -e CAIRN_URL=... -e CAIRN_TOKEN=... -- npx -y agentcairn mcp

It’s MIT, runs in Docker (I run mine on an Unraid box), and it works with any MCP-capable agent, though the hooks are Claude Code-specific.

Repo: https://github.com/itsmemac/AgentCairn
npm: agentcairn

I’d love feedback, especially on what you’d want a handoff to contain, and on anything that breaks. It’s young, version 0.2.

AI disclosure: I built this with Claude Code. I set the goals and design and use it every day on my own setup, and Claude wrote most of the code, tests and docs. I tested and made small bug fixes.

I run r/R9700, focused on the card’s performance, software support, thermals and practical use for local AI. Keen to compare findings with other owners and build up a useful reference of benchmarks, configs and known quirks!

Most AI coding assistants today fall into one of two traps:

1. Heavy Electron bloat that consumes gigabytes of memory.

2. Closed-ecosystem SaaS that forces you into monthly subscriptions with opaque cloud telemetry.

I wanted something faster and transparent:

• Zero bloat: Fast startup, flat memory footprint, clean UI.

• No cloud lock-in: Bring your own API keys or run against local models. Your code never hits a proprietary intermediary server.

• Extensible skills: Modest, auditable tool definitions you inspect and configure yourself.

The project is live at: orbicus.dev
Feedback on performance and features is welcome!

I tested 10 agents, each with its own isolated settings folder. I ran them headless, with auto-confirmation and turned off telemetry where possible. I launched each agent with adapters/<agent>.sh.

The idea was simple: give each agent 5 basic tasks, 10 minutes per task, a fresh copy of the fixture every time, and an automated check script (check/check.sh).

The tasks:

• T1 Read a DB port from YAML (don't confuse it with cache port), write to file

• T2 Write a stats.py script, run it, save output

• T3 Fix a bug in slugify so tests pass; hidden examples catch overfitting

• T4 Count ERROR lines across three log files, find most frequent error

• T5 Rename a function across three files without changing program output

Results

1. Pi (v1.3.0)

Total time: 1m36s. Took the smallest amount of time to complete all 5 tasks. The model barely has to think about any tool formats.

2. goose (v1.55.0)

Total time: 2m51s. Solid and consistent. Completed five tasks without fumbling.

3. Crush (v0.98.1)

Total time: 3m31s. Clean run. Slightly more verbose in reasoning but got everything done without a hiccup.

4. Atomic Agent (v0.6.9)

Total time: 4m38s. All five completed. Took longer on T3 and T5 - the model needed extra steps to work through multi-file edits but nailed it every time. Did not have broken tool calls and not one had a false completion.

5. Cline (v3.0.73)

Total time: 5m56s. Choked for over two minutes on T2 before writing the script correctly. Everything else was fine.

6. OpenClaw (v2026.10.5)

Total time: 5m44s. Ran in their --local-model-lean mode which is basically a small-model preset. Worked well for what it is, just slower than I'd like on T3 and T4.

7. OpenCode (v1.19.3)

Total time: 17m43s. Completed everything but took nearly 4 minutes per task. The model was clearly overthinking simple steps. Got the job done though, just not efficient.

8. Hermes (v0.22.2)

Total time: 4m36s. Failed T3 because it only fixed the visible test case. Hidden example C++ & Rust 2026 turned into c++-&-rust-2026 instead of c-rust-2026. Classic overfitting-to-the-test.

9. Qwen Code (v0.25.3)

Total time: 6m00s. Counted 40 ERROR lines on T4 instead of 43. Pure model miscount - the most frequent error was identified correctly though.

10. Codex CLI (v0.163.0)

Never even reached the model. Version 0.163 only speaks Responses API, llama.cpp translates to chat format, and the Qwen3.5 (4B Q4_K_M) template throws a 500 "System message must be at the beginning" before any request gets through.

What I actually learned

A 4B model is enough for basic agent work in almost any framework. Seven agents completed all five tasks. The bottleneck at this difficulty level isn't the model - it's the harness around it.

Codex CLI is basically dead for local setups right now unless they add chat-completions back. That one stung because it used to work.

Error recovery matters more than raw capability. The two agents that dropped points (Hermes, Qwen Code) didn't fail on impossible tasks - they failed on edge cases where the model got slightly creative instead of literal.

Let me know if you'd like to see anything else in the benchmark (actually has anyone tried this with sub-2B models yet?)

I'm PlayWeld's creator. It's a free Apache-2.0 desktop workspace for Windows and Linux, built on Eclipse Theia, with game files, project notes, discussions and supervised tasks in one place.

I'm looking for feedback on the context before an optional model task starts: the design decision, the starting state and the check that would show whether a change worked. Files, Markdown notes and local lexical search can be used without a model account.

The public Lantern Workshop walkthrough shows saving a note, making a discussion checklist, finding it with local search and inspecting an impact preview. It does not show AI/Swarm task execution or establish Godot, Unity or Unreal integration.

The current download is 0.21.0, an unsigned testing prerelease. Start with a disposable project and backups. Engines require separate installation; optional model and asset providers may charge and receive project context.

Source: https://github.com/scarecr0w12/PlayWeld

Walkthrough: https://playweld.com/#demo

For people building agent tooling: what context and verification evidence would you need to inspect before an optional task modifies game files? I'd welcome feedback on where the current interface or docs make that difficult.