Skip to main content
AIDiveForge AIDiveForge

Myco Brain vs Skawld

Myco Brain and Skawld are both agent frameworks tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Myco Brain

Myco Brain

The core mechanic is deterministic writes: the application code writes facts to Myco's Postgres store, not the LLM, so every stored fact carries a source document, a confidence score, and a full audit trail queryable via brain_why. One MCP server exposes that memory to Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Windsurf, and any other MCP-compatible client simultaneously — write from Claude Desktop, retrieve from Cursor, no sync step required. The vendor publishes a 500-question LongMemEval result and a recall@5 figure using a recency reranker, both on the full benchmark set. The hard ceiling appears when your agents need to act on what they remember — Myco stores and retrieves facts; it does not plan, route, or execute tasks, so orchestration logic lives elsewhere.

Skawld

Skawld

The SDK runs on Node.js 18+ and Bun 1.1+ as an ESM-only package, so it fits cleanly into modern TypeScript projects without a build-step fight. The vendor describes a minimal setup as a single `Agent` instantiation with a provider, a tool set, and a session — you are running a streaming agent loop in under a dozen lines. Where it starts to strain is on the documentation side: the README is thin, full docs live off-repo at skawld.com/docs, and community reports are sparse given the early star count. Teams who need battle-tested enterprise support or a large ecosystem of pre-built integrations will hit that ceiling fast.

AttributeMyco BrainSkawld
PricingFreeFree
Free trialNoNo
Open sourceYesYes
Has APINoYes
Self-hosted optionYesYes
PlatformsPostgres, Docker, MCP clientsNode.js 18+, Node.js 20+, Bun 1.1+
Released2026
Pros
  • Deterministic write path means the LLM never authors the facts stored in memory, so every retrieved fact links to a source document and confidence score — which means regulated teams get an audit trail without building one themselves.
  • One MCP server shared across all connected clients, so a fact written from Claude Desktop is immediately readable by a Cursor agent without a sync job or intermediate API call.
  • Full-stack boot with docker compose and no required API keys, so teams evaluate and prototype without committing credentials or cloud spend before the architecture is validated.
  • Content-hash deduplication on document ingestion, so re-importing the same ChatGPT or Claude export twice does not corrupt or inflate the memory store.
  • Graph queries over entity relationships via the built-in tools, so agents can retrieve not just isolated facts but the web of connections between people, decisions, and documents in the store.
  • Single-import agent loop — tools, sessions, permissions, streaming, and subagents are all included, so you avoid assembling three separate libraries before writing business logic.
  • Subagent delegation and handoff patterns are first-class, which means hierarchical multi-agent workflows stay inside one coherent session model instead of being wired together at the application layer.
  • Fine-grained permission and session management is built into the core, so enterprise teams can scope what each agent can do without bolting on a separate authorization layer.
  • Real-time streaming of agent actions is native to the SDK, which means CLI agents and interactive workflows can surface progress as it happens rather than blocking until a full response is ready.
  • MIT-licensed and self-hostable, so teams with data-residency requirements or cost constraints can run the full agent loop on their own infrastructure without negotiating a vendor agreement.
Cons
  • Myco stores and retrieves facts — it has no planner, no task router, and no execution loop. Teams building agents that need to act on retrieved memory must implement that logic themselves, which means maintaining a separate orchestration layer alongside the memory layer.
  • The self-hosted path requires running Postgres 16 with pgvector and managing that infrastructure. Teams without existing Postgres ops experience hit configuration and maintenance overhead that the single docker compose up does not eliminate long-term.
  • Semantic search requires a local Ollama instance or an external embedding provider; teams without GPU-capable self-host infrastructure who want semantic recall beyond full-text search are blocked until the cloud offering exits beta — at which point they are evaluating a hosted product with a waitlist rather than a drop-in replacement.
  • No API surface is exposed outside the MCP protocol, so teams whose agents run outside MCP-compatible clients cannot integrate without building a custom MCP wrapper — teams with that constraint typically move to a vector database with a standard REST or gRPC API instead.
  • Documentation is split between a thin README and an off-repo site at skawld.com/docs — when something breaks in the subagent delegation flow at 2am, you are reading sparse docs and hoping the example code in the `/examples` folder covers your case.
  • The community footprint is small: 286 stars, 18 forks, and zero open issues at the time of listing. A team that hits an undocumented edge case in session state or provider routing has no Stack Overflow thread, no Discord history, and no issue tracker to search — they read the source or they stop.
  • ESM-only with a Bun-first recommendation means teams running CommonJS codebases or legacy Node.js environments below 18 cannot adopt this without a migration. Projects locked to older toolchains switch to a framework that ships a CommonJS build.
  • No enumerated provider support beyond Anthropic in the scraped documentation — teams whose production stack depends on OpenAI, Mistral, or a local model need to verify provider compatibility before committing, and if the adapter does not exist, they write and maintain it themselves.
Bottom line

Only Skawld exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Myco Brain and Skawld?

Myco Brain is Free and open source, while Skawld is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Myco Brain better than Skawld?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.

Myco Brain vs Skawld: which should I pick?

Pick Myco Brain if its pricing model, openness, or platform fit matches your constraints; pick Skawld otherwise. Check free-trial availability on each listing if you want to test before committing.

Comparison data is sourced and verified by the AIDiveForge data pipeline. AIDiveForge is editorially independent.