DeepSeek HarnessvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| DeepSeek Harness | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 87/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 of 209 in AI Agents | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 265 285 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +9 293 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 6 |
| Latest release | — | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
DeepSeek Harness scores 87/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for DeepSeek Harness.
If you want the quickest setup, DeepSeek Harness is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
DeepSeek Harness is growing faster right now (+9 293 stars in 30 days).
DeepSeek Harness details →Tube Archivist details →