DeepSeek Harnessvsretroassembly
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| DeepSeek Harness | retroassembly | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 87/100 | 56/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 of 209 in AI Agents | #5 of 5 in Emulation |
| GitHub stars | 265 285 | 1 153 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +9 293 | +72 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 3 |
| Latest release | — | v7.260719.1051 · 19 Jul 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
DeepSeek Harness scores 87/100 against 56/100 for retroassembly, so it is the safer default.
retroassembly ships more often: 3 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for DeepSeek Harness.
If you want the quickest setup, retroassembly is easier to run; DeepSeek Harness needs more configuration.
DeepSeek Harness is growing faster right now (+9 293 stars in 30 days).
DeepSeek Harness details →retroassembly details →