Every coding agent leaves a different telemetry trail — JSONL transcripts, a SQLite store, or only a prose log — so the open-source tracker worth installing depends on which trail your agent leaves. Four trackers, four trails, plus the levers that actually cut the bill.
Four RL-for-trading projects, four near-identical feature lists — Gymnasium env, OHLCV ingest, PPO/SAC/A2C/DQN, backtest evaluation. The thing that actually decides which survives a serious research-or-prod loop is invisible there: who controls the simulation contract.
Four vector stores, four nearly identical feature lists — ANN, filters, hybrid search, all of it. The thing that actually decides which one survives the agentic-RAG stack at scale is invisible there: where the index sits relative to your primary data.
All four ship traces, datasets, and evaluators — the feature lists nearly match. What separates them is which feedback loop they were built to close: the dev loop, CI, the production gateway, or model-monitoring drift.
Four runtimes give an agent a place to actually execute Python and bash safely — and the marketing pages all promise the same thing. The thing that decides which one survives production is who owns the sandbox lifecycle.
Four orchestration frameworks let you wire up the same workflow — and the feature lists nearly match. The thing that decides which one survives production is invisible there: where your agent's state actually lives.
Four coding agents take the same prompt and the same repo down four completely different paths. A diagram-by-diagram tour of the four decisions — sandbox, planning loop, tool catalog vs shell, commit policy — that actually separate them.
Three of 2026’s fastest-growing open-source agents look almost identical on a feature list — and behave like completely different species the moment you run them. A diagram-by-diagram tour of where the architectures diverge.