What did Hlido score gptme/gptme?

gptme/gptme scored 75/100 (STEADY) in Hlido's independent, hands-on review.

How much does gptme/gptme cost?

Hlido recorded the pricing model as: Open source. Derived from evidence Hlido holds, not vendor-supplied; verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page.

Does any vendor pay Hlido for placement?

No. Hlido takes no money from the agents it rates — scoring weights stay private and the evidence behind every verdict is public.

gptme/gptme

Name: gptme/gptme review
Item: gptme/gptme
Rating: 75
Author: Hlido Editor

Coding · tested 2026-07-21 · re-test due 2026-10-19 · by the Hlido desk, not the vendor

In short: One of the original terminal coding agents — mature, provider-agnostic, and genuinely scriptable, if you're comfortable living in the CLI.

3 PASS · 2 FAIL of 5 public-surface claims

Visit gptme/gptme → scorecard.json

Quick answer

gptme/gptme scores 75/100 (STEADY) on Hlido’s independent, hands-on test (reviewed 2026-07-21). STEADY (75) because the tool is demonstrably mature and actively maintained (v0.32.1, 111 releases), the MIT license and local-first architecture are clean trust signals, and the automation surface (JSON output, non-inte Pricing: Open source (free entry point documented).

Hlido Editor · 2026-07-21

gptme has been around since spring 2023, which in agent-tool years makes it an elder, and the maturity shows: 111 releases, 4,000+ commits, and a design that treats the terminal as the whole product rather than a fallback. It writes code, runs shell and Python, browses via Playwright, and reads images — all locally, with your own keys, against Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, OpenRouter or a local llama.cpp. The part that matters for an agentic ecosystem is that it was built to be driven, not just chatted with: `--non-interactive`, `--no-confirm`, and `--output-format json` make it a legitimate CI/automation primitive, and it speaks both MCP (as a client) and ACP (as a server for editor embedding). It positions itself against Claude Code, Cursor and Warp, and on the axis of 'open, local-first, self-hostable' it holds that ground honestly. Where it asks something of you: this is a developer tool with a developer's onboarding — no hosted UI to hide behind, the polish is functional rather than designed, and getting value out of it assumes you already think in terminals and pipx. That's a deliberate trade, not a defect.

Why STEADY

STEADY (75) because the tool is demonstrably mature and actively maintained (v0.32.1, 111 releases), the MIT license and local-first architecture are clean trust signals, and the automation surface (JSON output, non-interactive mode, MCP/ACP) is real rather than aspirational. Not higher because the public surface is a GitHub README rather than a product with an evidenced onboarding path, and the experience is unapologetically CLI-only — excellent for its audience, narrow for everyone else.

Public-surface checklist

PASS Homepage loads (required)
PASS Primary value prop (required)
FAIL Cta present (required)
FAIL Pricing or access
PASS Evidence or demo

What we saw

1 screenshot captured by the Hlido engine during the reviewed run (run-cf6955366bff1626-github-com). Our own captures — not vendor marketing material.

gptme/gptme — run screenshot 1 (home.png) — home.png

What it does well

Runs as a genuine CLI primitive — non-interactive mode and JSON output make it CI/automation-friendly
Provider-agnostic: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, DeepSeek, OpenRouter, or local llama.cpp
Local-first and self-hostable — your keys, your machine, no mandatory cloud
Speaks MCP (client) and ACP (server) so it composes with other tools and editors
Long, consistent maintenance track record (since 2023, 100+ releases)

What it fails at

CLI-only onboarding — no hosted UI, assumes terminal + pipx fluency
Public surface is a README; there is no product marketing making verifiable claims to audit
Polish is functional, not designed — rough edges are part of the deal
Web UI and desktop app are secondary/in-development rather than first-class

Best for

Developers who want an open, scriptable coding agent they can run in CI
Teams that need provider flexibility and local-first execution for privacy or cost
Anyone embedding an agent into an editor via ACP or a pipeline via MCP
Users who prefer an auditable open-source tool over a hosted black box

Not recommended for

Non-technical users who need a polished GUI
Buyers who want vendor support and SLAs (this is community open source)
Anyone unwilling to manage their own API keys and environment

Pricing & access

ModelOpen source
Free entry pointYes — a free tier or open-source edition is documented
Pricing findable on the public surfaceFAIL

Derived from Hlido-held evidence only (engine checklist + editorial text); quotes are verbatim from the scorecard; not vendor-supplied; re-derived daily. Verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page. Last verified 2026-06-13.

Compared to

Aider breadth-of-terminal-tooling
Aider is the tighter git-native pair-programmer focused on edit-commit loops; gptme is the broader terminal agent that also runs shell/Python and browses. Pick Aider for disciplined in-repo edits, gptme for general terminal knowledge-work.
GooseAI automation-scriptability
Goose and gptme occupy similar 'agent in your terminal' territory; gptme's edge is its longer maturity and explicit JSON/non-interactive automation surface, Goose's is its extension ecosystem.

Agent relevance

API CLI MCP Behavioral-testable

Agentic-Commerce Readiness 72/100 · INTEGRABLE

Independent readiness for agent delegation & transaction. How it’s scored · check live

Strong. gptme is designed to be driven programmatically: a built-in REST server, JSON-line output, --non-interactive/--no-confirm flags, MCP client support and an ACP server for editor embedding. It can be a component inside a larger agent pipeline, not just a human chat tool.

Agent-friendly score: 8/10

Evidence

Terminal agent that writes code, uses the shell, browses the web — source (2026-07-21) verified
MIT licensed, 4.4k stars, 111 releases (v0.32.1) — source (2026-07-21) verified
Provider-agnostic incl. local llama.cpp; MCP + ACP support — source (2026-07-21) verified
Non-interactive mode and --output-format json for CI — source (2026-07-21) verified

scorecard.json · transparency passport · registry · methodology

More: compare agents · best of · developer tools · incident registry

Verdict by Hlido Editor, our automated editorial system · Method: public-surface-tier-1+editorial-narrative-v2 · Methodology version 2026.07 · Next review due 2026-10-19

How this page was produced. The scores, claim verdicts and evidence come from automated hands-on testing of the product’s public surface. The written analysis is drafted by an AI system, and pages publish without a person reviewing each one. Hlido publishes this record and answers for it — tell us if anything here is wrong and we will correct it.

Embed this trust badge

Live, always-current independent score — free to embed on your site or README. No vendor pays for placement.

Markdown

[![Hlido trust score](https://hlido.eu/badge/gptme-gptme.svg)](https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=gptme-gptme)

HTML

<a href="https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=gptme-gptme"><img src="https://hlido.eu/badge/gptme-gptme.svg" alt="Hlido trust score"></a>