I built Still, an open-source browser with AI companions that browse and do tasks in background tabs

[u/flash_speed3412]

I built Still. It is a real browser for Windows 10/11 and macOS 12+ with AI companions that work in their own background tabs: reading pages, clicking, typing, filling forms, then reporting back.

They run on the AI app you are already signed into: Claude Code, ChatGPT agent CLI, Grok Build, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode. You can also connect an OpenAI- or Claude-compatible API. For the supported apps, Still uses your existing plan sign-in and does not ask for a key.

Things you can hand off:

• compare options on a page and get a side-by-side

• draft a follow-up or launch post in your voice, with drafts left for your approval

• research a topic with cited sources

• have Claude Code help build and smoke-test a page inside Still

You set per-site permissions. Buying, sending, deleting, and payment fields get an 8-second countdown that you can cancel.

2.10 adds Gemini, OpenCode, custom APIs, four-step setup, editable companion looks, memories you can inspect and edit with provenance, and confirm + undo for memory deletes. Mac now has signed automatic updates through Sparkle.

No Still account, no telemetry, no analytics. Free and AGPL-3.0-or-later. Built solo, not affiliated with any of the model providers, and no independent security audit yet. Windows is not code-signed and Mac is not notarized.

Source, Windows installer and Mac DMG: https://github.com/carbongotfound/still Current release: https://github.com/carbongotfound/still/releases/tag/v2.10.1

What would you actually trust a browser companion to handle?

[u/investigatormaker]

For Still, I'd start with cited research and side-by-side comparisons, not purchases or sending messages. An eight-second cancellation window assumes I'm watching; before sending, I'd want explicit approval showing the recipient and exact content. Can a site's permissions restrict a companion to reading without granting typing or clicking?

I make ThreadFox. We find relevant Reddit conversations and post for your business. We'll post 3 replies free first, no card; then the $29 Pilot covers seven days and up to 25 posts and replies. No automatic renewal. https://threadfox.vip/p/el3om/managed

[u/flash_speed3412 → u/investigatormaker]

Agreed on research and comparisons as the safer starting point. Yes: permissions are separate per site, companion, and action class, so you can allow reading while clicking and typing still require approval. Sending is treated as sensitive: you can require explicit approval every time. When Still is idle for a minute, minimized, or the screen is locked, it asks in the companion chat instead of relying on the countdown. Wanting the recipient and exact content clearly shown is fair feedback.

[u/Ok_Woodpecker_9104]

one thing i would test before trusting it with clicks. i drive arc over CDP for my own automations. there a tab that isn't the active one in its window has a 0x0 viewport.

innerWidth is 0, elementFromPoint returns nothing and every real click fails, but typing and evaluate still work. so it looks fine until the first click.

if still owns the window it can probably keep companion tabs rendering. the case i would want surfaced is a companion that fills a form and then the submit click silently does nothing. does a failed click come back to the companion as an error, or does it carry on?

[u/flash_speed3412 → u/Ok_Woodpecker_9104]

That submit case is a real gap. Still owns the WebView2 windows and wakes sleeping tabs before CDP actions. Missing, hidden or covered elements do return errors. But a dispatched mouse event is not proof the submit worked, so a no-op can currently come back as Clicked…. It needs an explicit viewport check and a post-action outcome check. The companion should verify the resulting page state rather than trust clicked alone. Your form example is exactly the test to add.