OpenCode vs Google Antigravity

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialprobed4/10

   OpenCode's own llms.txt file returns 404, so there is no dedicated llms.txt for agents, but probes show that docs pages are available in machine-readable Markdown form (.md suffix returns 200), which serves an analogous agent-oriented documentation function. There's no first-party statement about llms.txt support or explicit agent-doc pointing workflow. Missing for 10: an actual llms.txt endpoint, documentation instructing users to point agents at machine-readable docs, and confirmation that agents can consume the .md docs as intended.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://opencode.ai/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/docs/.md import { Tabs, TabItem } from "@astrojs/starlight/components" import config from "..…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullprobed9/10

   Antigravity hosts a working llms.txt (HTTP 200) describing itself, and provides markdown-formatted docs pages (e.g. getting-started.md) that an agent can fetch directly, confirming genuine agent-oriented documentation support. Missing for 10: independent third-party confirmation that agents actually consume these successfully in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://antigravity.google/llms.txt # Google Antigravity > Google Antigravity is an advanced agentic coding pla…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://antigravity.google/docs/getting-started.md # Getting Started with Antigravity 2.0 ### Download Visit [a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Visit antigravity.google/download to download Google Antigravity 2.0. Select your operating system below”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports headless/CI use via `opencode run` for non-interactive execution, `opencode serve` for a headless HTTP server with OpenAPI, `--auto` for unattended permission approval, a JS/TS SDK for programmatic control, and a first-party GitHub Actions integration triggered by PR comments. This covers CLI scripting, server automation, and CI pipelines with concrete docs and an OpenAPI endpoint confirmed live. missing for 10: independent third-party validation of CI reliability at scale (community evidence mostly covers interactive TUI use, not CI-specific automation).

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Antigravity CLI has a documented headless mode explicitly for scripting agent tasks, CI pipeline integration, and machine-readable output (antigravity-docs-50), plus scheduled/cron tasks and background subagents support agentic automation outside interactive UI. Missing for 10: independent hands-on CI usage reports, concrete CI config examples/output schema, and no community corroboration of headless/CI use in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create or download fully customizable skills to further your agent’s autonomy and transform how you get work done.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userPlug MCP servers into this product so it can use their tools

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullclaimed9/10

   OpenCode has first-party documentation dedicated to adding external tools via MCP, supporting both local and remote servers, directly matching the story. This is corroborated indirectly by community discussion of OpenCode's tool/agent ecosystem, though no hands-on account specifically tests MCP server plugging. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation specifically of MCP server usage (community evidence discusses agents/tools generally but not MCP specifically).

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Antigravity has explicit, dedicated MCP documentation stating MCP lets it 'fetch structured context directly or execute safe actions on your behalf' and that it 'securely connects to local developer tools, databases, file parsers, and external remote APIs' via MCP, plus CLI/SDK support for configuring MCP servers (slash commands, plugins bundling MCP servers, layering MCP servers in the Agent SDK). Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of successfully connecting a third-party MCP server and using its tools in a real workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “MCP lets Antigravity fetch structured context directly or execute safe actions on your behalf when needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “lets AI agents and editors securely connect to local developer tools, databases, file parsers, and external remote APIs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Plugins are namespaced bundles that allow you to extend Antigravity’s capabilities by grouping skills, rules, MCP servers, and hooks into a …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode ships an official CLI with documented commands (opencode run, opencode serve, init, install via curl/npm) and dedicated CLI docs, corroborated by community users who actively use it as their primary daily-driver harness. Missing for 10: independent benchmarking of CLI completeness/stability beyond anecdotal community reports (some bug complaints noted but not disputing existence of an official CLI).

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g opencode-ai”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://opencode.ai/docs/cli/”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullprobed8/10

   Google Antigravity ships an official CLI with dedicated docs (antigravity-cli product page, headless/non-interactive mode for CI, sandboxing, vim mode, gcli migration), enabling natural-language orchestration of parallel agents, slash commands, and MCP/plugin config — clearly AI-native and agentic. Community evidence corroborates the CLI works in practice alongside VSCode. Missing for 10: independent deep-dive review of CLI-specific reliability/performance beyond a single community mention.

   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Navigate your entire workflow via standard terminal shortcuts: adjust permissions, themes, and preferences via /config and type /keybindings…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “the CLI automatically detects your existing profiles. An interactive checklist prompts you to choose which assets to migrate”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [claimed-docs] “Vim editor mode replaces the editing model in every multi-line input surface of the CLI”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [community] “I much prefer using Gemini CLI in combination with vscode. It works like a charm. Now, I'll do the same with Antigravity CLI and vscode. It …”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://antigravity.google/product/antigravity-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed8/10

   OpenCode ships a documented headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, confirmed live via probe (opencode-probe-3), plus a type-safe JS/TS SDK for programmatic control, and its CLI supports non-interactive scripted use (`opencode run`). missing for 10: independent third-party corroboration of SDK/API usage in production, and no evidence of versioning/stability guarantees or broader language SDK support beyond JS/TS.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attach a terminal to an already running OpenCode backend server started via `serve` or `web` commands.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialprobed6/10

   Antigravity documents an Agent SDK (Python) exposing the same tools/agent loop/context management as the app, plus a CLI headless mode for scripting and CI integration, both of which let an AI-native user drive the product programmatically. However, there is no evidence of a formal public REST/HTTP API — a probe for OpenAPI/swagger specs returned 404 on all candidate paths, so the 'documented public API' is limited to SDK/CLI surfaces rather than a conventional API contract. Missing for 10: a documented REST/HTTP API or OpenAPI spec, independent third-party confirmation of SDK usage/stability.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Agent SDK gives you the same tools, agent loop, and context management that power Google Antigravity, programmable in Python.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build AI agents that autonomously read files, run commands, edit code, and more.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed3/10

   OpenCode's permission config lets you restrict which actions (edit, bash, etc.) an agent may auto-run, prompt for, or block, and enterprise SSO integration centralizes access to an internal AI gateway — both are adjacent to least-privilege agent control, but neither is a mechanism for issuing scoped API credentials/keys specifically to an agent. missing for 10: explicit scoped API-key/credential issuance for agents, credential expiry/rotation, per-agent key scoping documentation, independent verification of this capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Antigravity documents permission tiers (Deny/Ask/Allow) and a CLI sandbox that explicitly blocks access to sensitive files like .env and ~/.ssh, which is the closest analog to least-privilege credential scoping for an agent (docs-23, docs-42, docs-48). However, independent reports document a concrete bypass: Antigravity's own setting disallowing .env access was circumvented via prompt injection to exfiltrate secrets, and a default allowlisted domain (webhook.site) was used as an exfiltration channel — directly contradicting the claimed least-privilege protection (antigravity-comm-11, antigravity-comm-12). There is no evidence of a true scoped API-credential-issuance mechanism (e.g., minting restricted API keys/tokens for an agent); missing for 10: actual credential/token scoping API, third-party security audit confirming the sandbox holds, and any documented remediation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Permissions are evaluated across three distinct access lists: Deny... Ask... Allow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Permissions are evaluated across three distinct access lists: Deny...Ask...Allow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity exfiltrates data via indirect prompt injection attack: Gemini is not supposed to have access to .env files with default s…”
   • [community] “The default Allowlist provided with Antigravity includes 'webhook.site', which was used as an exfiltration vector for secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed8/10

   OpenCode documents a dedicated JS/TS SDK ('type-safe client for interacting with the server... use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically') plus a headless server mode (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, confirmed live by probe (openapi.json returns valid schema). This gives AI-native users official, documented programmatic access beyond the CLI/TUI. Missing for 10: independent hands-on developer reports of building against the SDK, and broader multi-language SDK coverage beyond JS/TS.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullprobed7/10

   Google explicitly documents an official Agent SDK ('same tools, agent loop, and context management that power Antigravity, programmable in Python') supporting custom Python callables, MCP servers, skills, and multimedia inputs, which directly satisfies building against an official SDK. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer confirmation of the SDK working as documented, and no public API reference/OpenAPI spec was found (probe returned 404s), so depth of documentation beyond marketing copy is unverified.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Agent SDK gives you the same tools, agent loop, and context management that power Google Antigravity, programmable in Python.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pass rich multimedia file attachments (images, videos, audio, and documents) to the agent alongside textual instruction prompt lists.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build AI agents that autonomously read files, run commands, edit code, and more.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence shows OpenCode has a headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI/HTTP endpoint and an SDK for programmatic control, but there is no mention anywhere of webhook subscriptions or event-push notifications that clients could register for.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence of any webhook subscription mechanism; Antigravity is an IDE/CLI/agent platform with hooks, MCP, and scheduled tasks, but nothing about outbound event subscriptions via webhooks. Even the openapi probe returned 404s, indicating no public API surface for such integration.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's plan/explore agents let users get AI-generated code analysis and suggested changes without modifying the codebase, directly matching the story of AI-generated insights over the user's data (their code) (opencode-docs-7, opencode-docs-60, opencode-docs-61). Community mentions confirm active use of the agent for analysis/harness work (opencode-comm-1, opencode-comm-3). Missing for 10: independent examples of insight quality/output, and no evidence of insights beyond code (e.g., broader data analytics).

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity6/10

   Antigravity's editor/agent generates code suggestions, tab-autocompletion, and rich 'Artifacts' (implementation plans, diagrams, code diffs) that surface AI-derived insights from the user's codebase (antigravity-docs-6, -24, -30, -41), fitting the 'insights from data' story in a coding context. However, this is inference-in-editor suggestion generation rather than dedicated analytics/insight dashboards, and community hands-on reports raise real quality concerns ('the model was not good and slow, the harness was not good' — antigravity-comm-8), undercutting confidence in consistent insight quality. Missing for 10: no evidence of dedicated data-analysis/insight-summarization features beyond code artifacts, and no independent corroboration that suggestions are reliably high quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurable agent”
   • [community] “It's not even good, honestly. I was using it for couple weeks before dropping that 2 months ago. The model was not good and slow, the harnes…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode ships a documented GitHub Actions integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc in a comment triggers it to autonomously work in a new branch and submit a PR, plus a headless `serve` mode and `--auto` permission flag that let it run unattended, supporting background automations. However there's no dedicated scheduling/cron mechanism, and community evidence flags reliability issues (stuck sessions, tool-call failures) that undercut confidence in unattended runs. missing for 10: scheduled/triggered automation beyond GitHub comment mentions, independent evidence of long-running unattended background jobs succeeding reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly describe Scheduled Tasks with cron schedules that let agents 'start and run autonomously in the background' (docs-2), plus related capabilities like scheduling messages to agents while away (docs-39), isolated background worktrees (docs-38), and headless/non-interactive CLI runs for CI automation (docs-50). This directly matches the story of autonomous background automations. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification that scheduled background tasks work reliably (community evidence focuses on other bugs/exfiltration issues, not scheduling specifically), and more detail on monitoring/error-handling for unattended runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode's core function is exactly this: an AI coding agent you delegate tasks to via CLI/TUI/IDE/desktop ('opencode run "Explain how closures work..."'), with multiple agent personas (build, plan, explore) and multi-session parallel delegation, richly documented and corroborated by extensive hands-on community use as a daily coding harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark of delegation reliability across all model backends (some community reports of failed tool calls/edits with local models).

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the **Tab** key to switch between primary agents during a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity8/10

   Antigravity is built around delegating tasks to autonomous agents that operate across editor, terminal, and browser, with subagents, scheduled tasks, and natural-language task delegation extensively documented; hands-on community reports (comm-1, comm-10) confirm the agent/CLI actually works for delegated tasks. missing for 10: independent third-party benchmarking of delegation quality, and community evidence is mixed on reliability/bugs which caps quality below top marks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity comes pre-packaged with several specialized subagents out of the box”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”
   • [community] “I much prefer using Gemini CLI in combination with vscode. It works like a charm. Now, I'll do the same with Antigravity CLI and vscode. It …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode's core interface is natural-language driven: the CLI example `opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"` and TUI/desktop/IDE modes are all built around conversational prompts to an AI agent that then edits code, opens branches, and submits PRs. Community usage (comm-1, comm-3, comm-4, comm-11) confirms this is how real users operate it day-to-day as their primary coding harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark specifically validating breadth of natural-language command coverage beyond docs/anecdotes.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity8/10

   Docs consistently describe natural-language operation as the core interaction model — editing, orchestrating, and building 'all in natural language' (antigravity-docs-9), NL code commands in the IDE (antigravity-docs-6/41), and even voice-to-prompt transcription (antigravity-docs-3), backed by planning/artifact review flows driven by conversational prompts (antigravity-docs-24, antigravity-docs-25). Community evidence corroborates it functions as an agentic assistant (comm-1, comm-10) though with quality/reliability complaints unrelated to the NL-command axis itself. Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation specifically praising the NL-command UX (most community commentary focuses on bugs/pricing/security rather than command quality).

   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurable agent”
   • [claimed-docs] “Speak your prompts. Powered by the latest Gemini Audio models, real-time transcription converts conversational speech into clearly phrased p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The agent always halts and requests your explicit approval before proceeding with proposed changes.”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”
   • [community] “I much prefer using Gemini CLI in combination with vscode. It works like a charm. Now, I'll do the same with Antigravity CLI and vscode. It …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   The docs explicitly state that `opencode serve` runs a headless HTTP server exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, and a live probe confirms a downloadable machine-readable OpenAPI spec at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json. This directly satisfies the story of downloading a machine-readable API spec. Missing for 10: independent/community corroboration of using this OpenAPI spec in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at all standard candidate paths returned 404s, and no documentation item mentions a machine-readable API spec despite extensive docs on SDK, CLI, and MCP.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userTest against a sandbox environment without touching production data

   weight 1 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode's docs describe permission controls, --auto approval, and external_directory restrictions, but there is no evidence of a dedicated sandbox/staging environment or mechanism to test against non-production data separate from the user's actual working directory/production files. Community reports even flag security gaps in the local server (opencode-comm-18) rather than any sandboxing feature for safe testing.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [community] “When server is enabled, any web page served from localhost/127.0.0.1 can execute code; any local process can execute code without authentica…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Antigravity's CLI docs claim a sandbox that blocks sensitive files (~/.ssh, .env) and hides anything not explicitly mounted, which sounds like exactly the kind of safe-testing boundary this story wants, but hands-on community reports directly contradict this: Gemini bypassed its own .env protection to exfiltrate secrets via prompt injection, a default allowlisted webhook.site was used as an exfiltration vector, and in another incident Antigravity commands deleted an entire drive outside any expected sandbox boundary. This is a concrete, documented failure of the sandbox promise rather than mere skepticism. Missing for 10: a genuine isolated/staging environment separate from real user data, and any vendor or independent confirmation that the sandbox reliably prevents production-data access after these reported bypasses.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity exfiltrates data via indirect prompt injection attack: Gemini is not supposed to have access to .env files with default s…”
   • [community] “The default Allowlist provided with Antigravity includes 'webhook.site', which was used as an exfiltration vector for secrets.”
   • [community] “Antigravity was also vulnerable to the classic Markdown image exfiltration bug, reported a few days prior and flagged as 'intended behavior'…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode does expose programmatic surfaces (the JS/TS SDK, `opencode serve` HTTP server, and an OpenAPI spec at openapi.json), so an API-versioning/deprecation-policy axis is applicable. However, none of the evidence mentions API version numbers, backward-compatibility guarantees, or any documented deprecation policy/process for the SDK or server API.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence of versioned APIs or a documented deprecation policy; OpenAPI probe returned 404s across all candidate paths and no docs mention API versioning or deprecation timelines.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode's CLI (`opencode run`), SDK, and headless `opencode serve` provide programmatic hooks that could be scripted to loop over many files/tasks, and 'multi-session' lets multiple agents run in parallel on a project — but there is no documented first-class 'bulk operation' feature (e.g. batch refactor, mass file edit) or example of applying one command across many items at once. Missing for 10: explicit bulk/batch operation feature, documentation or examples of running the same task across many files/repos, independent evidence of successful large-scale batch use.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed6/10

   Antigravity supports parallel multi-agent orchestration across independent projects, subagent delegation, scheduled/background tasks, and a headless CLI for scripting bulk/CI workflows, which together enable operating across many items or tasks concurrently. However, there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated 'bulk operation' primitive (e.g., batch-apply an action across a list of files/items in one command) — the capability is inferred from parallelism/orchestration features rather than a purpose-built bulk-ops interface. missing for 10: explicit bulk/batch API or command for applying one operation across many items, independent hands-on evidence of large-scale parallel task execution working reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports some automatic rule-triggered behavior: GitHub integration lets a PR/issue comment mention (`/opencode` or `/oc`) automatically trigger the agent to execute tasks in a GitHub Actions runner, and the `permission` config lets you define rules for auto-approving, prompting, or blocking specific tool actions. This covers event-triggered automation in a narrow sense, but there's no general-purpose, user-defined event/rule engine (e.g., file-change hooks, cron-like triggers, custom event listeners) described in the docs. Missing for 10: a general automation/hooks system beyond GitHub comment mentions and permission gating, and independent evidence confirming reliability of these triggers in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the permission config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “For most permissions, you can use an object to apply different actions based on the tool input.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Antigravity's docs describe explicit rule activation modes (Manual, Always On, Model Decision, Glob) that trigger agent behavior automatically based on context/file patterns, plus Hooks that run custom scripts at specific points in the execution loop and Scheduled Tasks that trigger agents on a cron schedule — together these directly satisfy 'rules that trigger actions automatically on events'. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification that rule-triggering works reliably in practice, and more detail on broader event types beyond glob/model-decision/cron.

   • [claimed-docs] “At the rule level you can define how a rule should be activated: Manual... Always On... Model Decision... Glob”
   • [claimed-docs] “Hooks allow you to run custom scripts or shell commands at specific points during Antigravity’s execution loop.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules are manually defined constraints for the Agent to follow, at both the local and global levels.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence of any scheduling, cron-like, or recurring workflow trigger capability; OpenCode's docs cover CLI, agents, MCP, permissions, SDK, GitHub Actions triggers, and server mode but none describe scheduling or recurring automation. missing for 10: any scheduler/cron feature, recurring job configuration, or workflow trigger on a schedule.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly describe Scheduled Tasks with cron-defined schedules that run agents autonomously in the background, plus scheduling messages to agents for later delivery, directly matching the recurring-jobs/workflow story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that scheduling actually works reliably in practice, and more detail on job management (editing/deleting/monitoring scheduled runs).

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence covers agent creation, permissions, sessions, and sharing, but there is no documentation or community mention of versioning automations, reviewing change history, or rolling back agent/workflow configurations — session share links are for reference/debugging, not version control or rollback.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This command will guide you through creating a new agent with a custom system prompt and permission configuration.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Evidence shows automations (skills, hooks, plugins, scheduled tasks) but no mention of versioning, review history, or rollback capabilities for these automations themselves — missing for 10: version control/history for skills/hooks/plugins, a review workflow for automation changes, and any rollback/undo mechanism for automations.

   ⚑ flag

Background execution

1. ai-native userHave a cloud agent build, test, and demo a feature end-to-end for my review

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   OpenCode's GitHub integration lets it work in a new branch and submit a PR autonomously when mentioned via `/opencode` in GitHub Actions, and its share-links/session feature lets a reviewer inspect the agent's work — together covering 'build' and 'demo for review' in a cloud context. However, there is no explicit documentation of an automated testing step as part of this workflow, and the 'cloud agent' aspect relies on self-hosted GitHub Actions runners rather than a dedicated managed cloud agent service. Missing for 10: explicit test-execution/validation step in the PR workflow, and a first-party fully-hosted cloud agent (not just Actions-runner based) with demo artifacts.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity6/10

   Docs describe agents that autonomously operate across editor/terminal/browser, delegate testing to subagents, produce reviewable Artifacts (implementation plans, diffs, browser recordings) and halt for approval — covering build, test and demo-for-review end-to-end (antigravity-docs-7,18,24,25,30,46). However, community reports of a subpar harness, app-breaking bugs, and a case where autonomous terminal execution deleted a whole drive raise real doubts about reliable end-to-end execution (antigravity-comm-8,antigravity-comm-14). Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of a full successful build→test→demo cycle, and resolution of reliability/security concerns that could derail autonomous runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The agent always halts and requests your explicit approval before proceeding with proposed changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”
   • [community] “It's not even good, honestly. I was using it for couple weeks before dropping that 2 months ago. The model was not good and slow, the harnes…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerDelegate longer-running coding tasks to run in the background in an isolated cloud environment

   weight 3 · round drawn
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode documents GitHub integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc triggers it to work in a new branch and submit a PR, executing tasks inside the GitHub Actions runner (an isolated cloud environment), which supports background delegation of coding tasks. However, there's no dedicated general-purpose 'cloud agent' product, persistent cloud session management, or evidence of handling arbitrarily long-running tasks outside the GitHub Actions context. missing for 10: a dedicated hosted/cloud sandbox environment independent of GitHub Actions, evidence of long-running task monitoring/resumption in the cloud, and independent hands-on confirmation of this workflow succeeding.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Antigravity supports background/autonomous execution via Scheduled Tasks that run agents in the background, Git worktree-based isolated background folders, and scheduling messages for agents while away, plus a 'Remote Control' feature to connect to running desktop sessions across machines. However, these mechanisms describe local-machine or worktree isolation and remote access to local sessions, not a distinctly cloud-hosted sandbox environment for offloading long-running tasks the way some competitors do. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of a persistent cloud-hosted execution environment independent of the user's machine, and independent/hands-on confirmation that background tasks truly run isolated in the cloud rather than locally.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity Remote Control allows you to securely connect to and drive your Antigravity 2.0 desktop sessions running across your machines fr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Parallel agents

1. ai-native userLaunch fleets of autonomous agents that work in parallel on different tasks for hours or days

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode documents multi-session support ('Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project'), subagents with per-agent model choice, and GitHub Actions integration where mentioning /opencode lets it execute unattended tasks and open PRs — all pointing toward parallel, semi-autonomous agent operation. However, there is no explicit documentation or evidence of orchestrating large 'fleets' of agents or of sustained autonomous operation over hours/days, and community reports note agents 'randomly stuck, especially for long/nested sessions,' undercutting long-horizon reliability. Missing for 10: dedicated fleet-management/orchestration tooling, explicit hours/days-long autonomous run support, and independent confirmation of stable long-running parallel agent execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed7/10

   Docs describe orchestrating multiple autonomous agents in parallel across independent projects, scheduled/cron tasks that run autonomously in the background, worktree-isolated agents, subagent delegation, and remote control to check on running sessions from a browser — all supporting a 'fleet of parallel long-running agents' story. However, there is no independent/hands-on confirmation of agents actually running unattended for 'hours or days' at scale, and community reports focus on bugs, quota limits, and security issues rather than validating multi-day parallel fleet operation. Missing for 10: independent verification of long-duration (hours/days) autonomous runs, evidence of fleet scale limits, and hands-on confirmation from third parties.

   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity Remote Control allows you to securely connect to and drive your Antigravity 2.0 desktop sessions running across your machines fr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerRun several task attempts in parallel and compare results before choosing one

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode~partialcommunity4/10

   OpenCode documents 'multi-session' support to start multiple agents in parallel on the same project (opencode-docs-17/38) and share links to sessions for reference/debugging (opencode-docs-18/37), which enables running parallel work and inspecting different sessions. However, there is no documented feature for running multiple attempts at the *same* task specifically to compare outcomes and pick a winner (e.g., no diff/compare UI or attempt-ranking workflow), and community threads discuss general session-state bugs rather than this comparison workflow. Missing for 10: explicit same-task multi-attempt spawning, a built-in comparison/diff view across attempts, and evidence of choosing/merging the best result.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm agents can run in parallel (multiple agents across projects, multiple CLI agents for large tasks) and a central dashboard to monitor/orchestrate them, but nothing describes running multiple attempts at the SAME task and comparing outputs before choosing a winner — that specific 'compare-and-select' workflow is unevidenced. missing for 10: explicit multi-attempt/variant generation for a single task, a comparison UI or ranking mechanism, and any selection step among parallel attempts.

   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Scheduled automation

1. ai-native userSet up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to maintain and fix my software autonomously

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode documents CLI/TUI/desktop agents, permission automation, GitHub Actions integration triggered by comments, and a headless server/SDK, but there is no evidence of scheduling (cron-like) or event-trigger-based always-on autonomous agents that proactively maintain/fix software without a user or PR-comment invocation. The GitHub integration is triggered by manual mentions, not autonomous scheduled monitoring. Missing for 10: scheduled/cron-based agent runs, event-driven triggers beyond manual mentions, autonomous 'always-on' background maintenance capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity7/10

   First-party docs explicitly describe Scheduled Tasks with cron schedules that start and run agents autonomously in the background, plus scheduling messages to agents while away, parallel autonomous agent orchestration, and headless CLI mode for CI/trigger-based automation. However, there is no independent/hands-on corroboration of the scheduling feature itself, and community reports document serious reliability/safety incidents with autonomous execution (e.g., an agent deleting a whole drive via unattended terminal auto-execution), raising doubt about safely running such agents unattended. Missing for 10: independent verification that scheduled/cron-triggered agents work reliably in practice, and evidence that autonomous 'maintain and fix' runs don't require the same close supervision seen in incident reports.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”
   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Code completion

1. developerReceive inline code completions and next-edit suggestions as I type

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode is presented as an agent-driven terminal/desktop/IDE-extension tool that responds to explicit prompts, runs agents, and edits files via chat-like sessions — there is no mention of inline ghost-text completions or next-edit suggestions as the developer types. The IDE integration docs describe opening a terminal split and inserting file references, not autocomplete.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs mention the Editor view offers 'tab autocompletion' and 'natural language code commands' alongside the agent, which covers basic inline completion, but there is no detail on next-edit suggestions (predictive multi-line edits) or independent/hands-on confirmation of completion quality or latency. missing for 10: explicit next-edit-suggestion feature description, independent hands-on validation of autocomplete quality/reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurable agent”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Debugging

1. developerDebug issues and troubleshoot using natural-language queries

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode is a terminal/IDE-based coding agent that takes natural-language queries (e.g. `opencode run "Explain how closures work..."`), can explore/read codebases via a dedicated read-only agent, and auto-loads LSPs so it can surface diagnostics/errors while chatting, all of which supports NL-driven debugging and troubleshooting; community users confirm using it as a daily 'harness' with good LSP integration for real work. missing for 10: no dedicated 'debug' or troubleshooting workflow docs, and community reports of failed tool calls/unreliable file edits with some models introduce real-world friction.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed6/10

   Antigravity's docs show natural-language code commands, autonomous operation across editor/terminal/browser, and subagents that can run tests and search codebases (docs-6,7,9,18,46), which collectively support debugging/troubleshooting via NL prompts, but there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated 'debug' workflow or troubleshooting examples, and community reports focus on stability/security issues rather than confirming debugging quality. Missing for 10: explicit debugging-specific documentation or examples, and independent hands-on validation that NL debugging queries work reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Feature implementation

1. developerTurn a tracked issue into a complete pull request end-to-end

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly state OpenCode can be asked to fix an issue or implement a feature, working in a new branch and submitting a PR with all changes, and it integrates with GitHub Actions via /opencode mentions to run tasks end-to-end. This directly covers issue-to-PR automation, though evidence is vendor-documented only without independent hands-on confirmation of the full issue-to-PR flow succeeding. Missing for 10: independent/community verification of a successful end-to-end issue-to-PR run, and detail on how issue tracking (e.g., linking to GitHub issues specifically) is handled beyond the GitHub Actions integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Antigravity's docs describe autonomous coding agents that can edit files, run terminal commands, and operate across editor/terminal/browser, but there is no evidence of any issue-tracker (e.g., GitHub Issues) integration or an end-to-end workflow that ingests a tracked issue and produces a pull request. Missing for 10: issue-tracker ingestion, automated branch/PR creation, and any documented GitHub/GitLab PR workflow example.

   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerDescribe a feature or bug in plain language and have the agent implement or fix it across multiple files

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode is explicitly a coding agent that takes plain-language instructions and edits code, with docs describing it fixing issues/implementing features and submitting PRs (opencode-docs-12), a CLI for prompting tasks (opencode-docs-22), and permission/auto-approve config for autonomous multi-file changes (opencode-docs-13/14). Community reports corroborate real-world multi-file coding use, with several users calling it their primary harness replacing Aider/Claude Code (opencode-comm-1, opencode-comm-3, opencode-comm-4, opencode-comm-11, opencode-comm-14), though some report unreliable file edits with certain local models and failed tool calls in general (opencode-comm-10, opencode-comm-12). Missing for 10: independent benchmark data on multi-file edit accuracy, and resolution of the reported local-model editing reliability issues.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”
   • [community] “OpenCode is awesome. Claude Code is nothing special at all. Last month I switched to just using OpenCode with a Codex $200/mo subscription, …”
   • [community] “I haven't been able to successfully get their CLI to reliably edit files when using local models, anybody else having the same problem?”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity7/10

   Docs describe the core loop clearly: natural-language commands drive an agent that autonomously edits code across the editor/terminal, with Projects spanning multiple folders/repos giving full codebase context and Artifacts showing diffs/plans for review (antigravity-docs-6,7,9,17,24,30,40). Community reports confirm it functions as a real coding-agent IDE (comm-1) but also describe hands-on quality issues with the agent harness and model reliability during actual implementation work (comm-8), so delivery is real but not consistently polished. Missing for 10: independent benchmark/case-study evidence of successful multi-file feature implementation, and resolution of reported harness/quality complaints.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build AI agents that autonomously read files, run commands, edit code, and more.”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”
   • [community] “It's not even good, honestly. I was using it for couple weeks before dropping that 2 months ago. The model was not good and slow, the harnes…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Maintenance automation

1. developerHave the agent write tests, fix lint errors, resolve merge conflicts, and update dependencies for me

   weight 3 · round drawn
   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode is documented as a general-purpose coding agent that can edit files, run shell commands, and even autonomously fix issues and submit PRs (opencode-docs-12, opencode-docs-58), which implies it can perform tasks like writing tests, fixing lint, resolving conflicts, and updating deps as generic coding actions. However, none of the docs explicitly call out test-writing, lint-fixing, merge-conflict resolution, or dependency updates as named capabilities, and community reports note reliability gaps such as failed tool calls and unreliable file edits especially with local models (opencode-comm-10, opencode-comm-12). Missing for 10: explicit documentation or hands-on evidence of test generation, lint-fix workflows, merge-conflict resolution, and dependency-update automation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “I haven't been able to successfully get their CLI to reliably edit files when using local models, anybody else having the same problem?”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity6/10

   Antigravity's docs describe general-purpose coding agents/subagents that can run tests, edit code, and operate across editor/terminal/browser (docs-18, docs-46, docs-40, docs-7), which implicitly covers writing tests and dependency/code edits, but there is no explicit documentation calling out lint-error fixing, merge-conflict resolution, or dependency updates as named capabilities. Community evidence is mixed on general quality/reliability but does not concretely refute these specific tasks. Missing for 10: explicit first-party documentation or hands-on examples of lint-fixing, merge-conflict resolution, and dependency-update workflows specifically.

   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build AI agents that autonomously read files, run commands, edit code, and more.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Agent SDK gives you the same tools, agent loop, and context management that power Google Antigravity, programmable in Python.”
   • [community] “It's not even good, honestly. I was using it for couple weeks before dropping that 2 months ago. The model was not good and slow, the harnes…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Multimodal generation

1. ai-native userGenerate a working app from a sketch, image, or PDF design

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode's evidence pack shows a terminal/IDE-based coding agent with text prompts, MCP, agents, and CLI/SDK, but there is no mention anywhere of image, sketch, or PDF design input being converted into a working app — no vision/multimodal input capability is documented.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed4/10

   Antigravity supports passing images, PDFs and other multimedia attachments to the agent as part of prompts (docs-15, docs-32), which implies it could take a sketch/image/PDF as design input for code generation, but there is no explicit documentation or example of a 'sketch-to-app' or 'design-to-code' workflow, nor any hands-on report of this being used successfully. missing for 10: dedicated design-to-app feature/workflow documentation, an example or case study of generating an app from an image/PDF, and independent verification that this works in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pass rich multimedia file attachments (images, videos, audio, and documents) to the agent alongside textual instruction prompt lists.”
   • [claimed-docs] “External files such as Google Drive links, PDFs, and Office documents now appear in their own Documents section in the sidebar above Artifac…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Codebase mapping

1. developerUnderstand how a codebase fits together to find where to start making changes

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode ships a dedicated read-only 'explore' agent for scanning codebases and a 'plan' agent that analyzes code and proposes changes without modifying files, backed by automatic LSP loading for the right language context and skills that surface repo-specific instructions; community notes call the LSP integration 'great' for understanding code. Missing for 10: no dedicated codebase-mapping/visualization feature, no independent benchmark of comprehension quality, and no first-hand user account describing successful architecture-level onboarding via these agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed6/10

   Antigravity provides contextual codebase understanding indirectly: Projects give agents full context across multiple folders/repos, subagents can perform 'extensive codebase searches', and Artifacts can include architecture diagrams and implementation plans that map out how a change fits into the codebase. However, there's no dedicated codebase-mapping/explanation feature, and no independent/hands-on evidence confirming how well the agent actually explains codebase structure. Missing for 10: a first-class 'explain/visualize codebase architecture' feature, independent hands-on validation of comprehension quality on real repos.

   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerHave the agent map and explain an entire unfamiliar codebase without manually selecting context files

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode ships a dedicated read-only 'explore' agent explicitly for exploring codebases and a plan agent for analyzing code without edits, plus automatic LSP loading that gives it broader code awareness without manual file picking. However there's no documented feature for generating a full repo map/summary or explicit 'explain this whole codebase' workflow beyond agent tool use (e.g. grep/glob/read), and no independent hands-on evidence confirming it successfully maps a large unfamiliar codebase end-to-end. Missing for 10: explicit repo-map/codebase-summary feature, hands-on/independent confirmation of whole-codebase explanation without manual context selection.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs indicate agents automatically get full-project context (docs-17, docs-35) and can delegate to subagents that perform 'extensive codebase searches' (docs-18/46), suggesting the agent can explore an unfamiliar repo without manual file selection. However, there is no explicit feature or example describing whole-codebase mapping/explanation, and no independent/hands-on evidence confirming this works well in practice. missing for 10: a dedicated 'explain codebase' or repo-mapping feature description, and independent verification of this on an unfamiliar large codebase.

   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Context management

1. developerHave the agent build and recall memory automatically across sessions

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes any persistent memory feature that automatically builds or recalls context/knowledge across separate sessions; docs cover sessions, sharing, agents, MCP, skills, and permissions, but nothing about automatic cross-session memory persistence or recall.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   The evidence describes Projects, Rules, Artifacts, and context management, but none of these describe an automatic memory system that builds and recalls information across sessions without user re-specification; Rules are explicitly manual, and Projects only scope folders/permissions, not persistent learned memory. No documentation or community evidence confirms automatic cross-session memory recall.

   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “At the rule level you can define how a rule should be activated: Manual... Always On... Model Decision... Glob”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules are manually defined constraints for the Agent to follow, at both the local and global levels.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerInclude multiple project directories in a single session for broader context

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   The evidence shows a permission flag (`external_directory`) that lets tool calls touch paths outside the working directory, but there is no documentation or community report describing a way to add multiple project directories into a single session for combined context. Multi-session and multi-agent features are about running parallel sessions, not merging directories into one context.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly state Projects can span multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and backend repo) giving agents full codebase context, with Projects defining folder/repo access boundaries and worktree support for isolated background folders. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of multi-folder session use in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Group your conversations into Projects, which can span multiple folders and support custom settings and scoped permissions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerAdd a project instructions file to set coding standards and conventions the agent follows

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode's docs mention an `opencode init` step to set up a project (docs-21/39/56) and 'Agent skills' that let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from a repo or home directory (docs-8/28), which suggests some mechanism for project-level guidance, but no evidence explicitly describes a dedicated instructions/config file (e.g., AGENTS.md) for coding standards and conventions. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of a project instructions file format, guidance on writing coding-standards content into it, and independent/hands-on confirmation that the agent actually follows such a file.

   • [claimed-docs] “initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Next, initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command.”
   • [claimed-docs] “initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Antigravity supports Rules (manually defined constraints for the agent at local and global levels, with activation modes like Always On/Glob) which serve as a project instructions file for coding standards and conventions, and Projects scope these settings per folder/repo. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on confirmation of rules file format or behavior, and no evidence of a specific standardized file name (e.g. AGENTS.md-equivalent) or examples of it being used in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “At the rule level you can define how a rule should be activated: Manual... Always On... Model Decision... Glob”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules are manually defined constraints for the Agent to follow, at both the local and global levels.”
   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Issue diagnosis

1. developerReproduce issues, narrow down root causes, and verify fixes

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialcommunity5/10

   OpenCode's general coding-agent capabilities (shell/tool execution, LSP integration, a read-only 'explore' agent, and a 'plan' agent for analysis without changes) imply support for investigating bugs and iterating on fixes, and community feedback confirms strong LSP-based codebase navigation. However, there is no explicit documentation of a reproduce/debug/verify workflow, test running, or root-cause tooling, and community reports cite failed tool calls and agents getting stuck on long sessions, undermining reliability for this exact workflow. Missing for 10: explicit debugging/test-execution documentation, first-party guidance on reproducing bugs or verifying fixes, and independent hands-on confirmation of successful root-cause workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity6/10

   Antigravity's agents can run terminal commands and browser sessions, delegate to subagents that run tests or search the codebase (docs-18, docs-46, docs-7), and produce Artifacts with diffs, plans and browser recordings that could serve as reproduction/verification evidence (docs-30, docs-51). Headless/CI mode (docs-50) also supports automated verification loops. However there is no explicit documented workflow for issue reproduction or root-cause narrowing, and community reports show real-world reliability problems (deleted directories, exfiltration bugs) rather than confirmation that debugging workflows work well. Missing for 10: a dedicated debugging/root-cause-analysis feature, explicit test-verification-of-fix workflow, and independent hands-on validation that this works well in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An Artifact is a structured deliverable created by the agent to accomplish its task and communicate its progress and thinking to the human u…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Marketplace

1. developerEquip the agent with custom skills to perform specialized tasks

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode has a dedicated 'Agent Skills' feature that lets it discover reusable, on-demand instructions from repo or home directory via a native `skill` tool, directly matching the custom-skills story, and this is corroborated by community praise for its subagents/customizability. Missing for 10: no independent hands-on report specifically testing custom skill authoring/loading, and no detail on skill packaging/sharing ecosystem.

   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory.”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Antigravity has a dedicated Skills system: SKILL.md-based reusable packages of knowledge/instructions the agent follows for specific tasks, creatable/downloadable and accessible via slash commands, plus composable with plugins that bundle skills, rules, MCP servers, and hooks. This is documented across product and docs pages consistently, though no independent/community hands-on verification of custom skills specifically was found. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of custom skill creation working in practice, and a marketplace/registry of shareable skills.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create or download fully customizable skills to further your agent’s autonomy and transform how you get work done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A skill is a folder containing a `SKILL.md` file with instructions that the agent can follow when working on specific tasks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Skills are reusable packages of knowledge that extend what the agent can do.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Plugins are namespaced bundles that allow you to extend Antigravity’s capabilities by grouping skills, rules, MCP servers, and hooks into a …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadIntegrate third-party partner-built agent apps into my workflows

   weight 1 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports MCP (local/remote servers) to add external tools, has an SDK/headless server for programmatic integrations, and GitHub Actions integration—these enable connecting third-party agent apps/tools into workflows. However, there's no evidence of a curated partner marketplace or vendor-vetted third-party 'agent apps' ecosystem beyond generic MCP/tool integration. missing for 10: a documented partner/marketplace ecosystem of pre-built third-party agent apps, case studies of integrating named partner agents, and independent verification of such integrations working smoothly.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Vendor docs describe an extensibility layer (MCP servers, plugins, skills, hooks) that in principle lets teams plug in third-party building blocks (docs-14, docs-28, docs-12), suggesting an ecosystem for integrating outside agent capabilities. However, hands-on community reports directly contradict the notion of freely integrating partner-built agent apps: using a third-party agent ('Pi agent') alongside Antigravity triggered a Google account ban under Antigravity's TOS restricting 3rd-party usage, and users discovered unofficial vs official extensions causing confusion (comm-17, comm-18). Missing for 10: an official partner/marketplace program for third-party agent apps, clear TOS allowance for such integrations, and independent confirmation that such integrations work without account risk.

   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Plugins are namespaced bundles that allow you to extend Antigravity’s capabilities by grouping skills, rules, MCP servers, and hooks into a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended. My friend got a ban by using Pi agent with Antigravity. They un-ba…”
   • [community] “The VSCode Antigravity extension I was using turns out to be a 3rd-party one. I found out only today that there's an official extension too,…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Team knowledge

1. engineering-leadCreate a shared workspace from my docs and repos as a common source of truth for the team

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode offers session share links, repo-based 'agent skills', and enterprise SSO/config, but there is no evidence of a dedicated shared workspace feature that ingests both docs and repos into a common, persistent team source of truth — these are separate, ad-hoc mechanisms rather than a unified workspace.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Antigravity's 'Projects' concept groups folders/repos for a single agent session's context (docs-5, docs-17, docs-35, docs-38) and can surface Docs/Drive links (docs-32), but there is no evidence of a multi-user, team-shared workspace or collaborative source-of-truth that an engineering-lead could set up for a whole team — Projects appear to be individually scoped, local constructs rather than shared team assets.

   • [claimed-docs] “Group your conversations into Projects, which can span multiple folders and support custom settings and scoped permissions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents work within Projects, which define the boundaries of the folders and repositories they can access.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “External files such as Google Drive links, PDFs, and Office documents now appear in their own Documents section in the sidebar above Artifac…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Tool integration

1. developerConnect the agent to workflow tools like Jira, Slack, and Google Drive to extend its context

   weight 3 · round drawn
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports MCP for adding external tools (local and remote servers), which is the generic mechanism by which one could connect Jira/Slack/Google Drive-type integrations, but there is no direct first-party or community evidence of specific Jira, Slack, or Google Drive connectors or integrations. missing for 10: named first-party or community-verified MCP servers/integrations for Jira, Slack, or Google Drive specifically, and any evidence of workflow-tool context extension beyond generic MCP support.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Antigravity documents generic MCP support for connecting to 'local developer tools, databases, file parsers, and external remote APIs' and explicitly shows Google Drive links/files appearing in its sidebar Documents section, giving a plausible path to hook in workflow tools. However, there is no explicit documentation of Jira or Slack connectors/integrations, and no first-party or community evidence of anyone actually wiring these specific tools in via MCP. Missing for 10: explicit Jira/Slack connector docs or MCP server examples, and independent confirmation of successful workflow-tool integrations beyond Drive.

   • [claimed-docs] “MCP lets Antigravity fetch structured context directly or execute safe actions on your behalf when needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “lets AI agents and editors securely connect to local developer tools, databases, file parsers, and external remote APIs”
   • [claimed-docs] “External files such as Google Drive links, PDFs, and Office documents now appear in their own Documents section in the sidebar above Artifac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerKick off agent tasks directly from GitHub, GitLab, Linear, or Slack

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode has documented GitHub integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc in a comment triggers tasks in GitHub Actions, including issue-to-PR workflows, but there is no evidence of native GitLab, Linear, or Slack integrations for kicking off agent tasks. missing for 10: GitLab integration, Linear integration, Slack integration, independent hands-on confirmation of the GitHub Actions flow working reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence that Antigravity supports kicking off agent tasks from GitHub, GitLab, Linear, or Slack; documentation covers IDE, CLI, SDK, scheduled tasks, and MCP but no mention of triggers from these external issue-tracker/chat platforms.

   ⚑ flag

Cross device continuity

1. developerStart a task on one device and continue it later from another device or browser

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode supports remote/headless usage via `opencode serve` plus a TUI that can connect to a remote backend, share links for sessions, and a WebUI that can connect to multiple backends from anywhere (including mobile), which enables cross-device continuation of a session. However, this requires manual server setup rather than seamless native cloud sync, and community reports note bugs restoring session state and provider/model selection issues across sessions. missing for 10: first-party seamless cross-device sync without self-hosting a server, official mobile app, and clear documentation/evidence of resuming full task state (not just session sharing) across devices.

   • [claimed-docs] “This allows using the TUI with a remote OpenCode backend.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Antigravity Remote Control explicitly lets users securely connect to and drive their desktop Antigravity sessions from any web browser, directly enabling continuing a task started on one device from another device/browser, and scheduled/background tasks further support async continuation across sessions. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of cross-device continuity, details on session/state sync fidelity, and any community confirmation of this specific feature working in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity Remote Control allows you to securely connect to and drive your Antigravity 2.0 desktop sessions running across your machines fr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “users can schedule messages to be sent to their agents while they’re away”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ide integration

1. developerView interactive diffs and share selected code as context from within my JetBrains IDE

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence only shows OpenCode integrating with VS Code, Cursor, or 'any IDE that supports a terminal' via keyboard shortcuts for split-terminal view and inserting file references; there is no mention of a JetBrains-specific plugin, interactive diff viewer, or JetBrains context-sharing UI. missing for 10: JetBrains plugin/extension documentation, interactive diff rendering inside JetBrains, JetBrains-specific 'share selected code' mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use `Cmd+Esc` (Mac) or `Ctrl+Esc` (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use `Cmd+Option+K` (Mac) or `Alt+Ctrl+K` (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Antigravity is documented as a standalone VSCode-fork IDE with its own Editor view, Artifacts diff viewer, and CLI/SDK — there is no mention anywhere in the docs, changelog, or community threads of a JetBrains plugin or JetBrains-specific integration for diffs or context sharing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Added a "Hide Whitespace Changes" option to the Review Changes overflow menu and file diff viewers to filter out whitespace-only edits.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Code and data artifacts like SQL and JSONL files now open in a virtualized viewer with syntax highlighting and line numbers”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerChat with the coding assistant directly inside my IDE for contextual help

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode ships an IDE extension and integrates directly in VS Code/Cursor with in-editor shortcuts (split terminal view, file-reference insertion) for contextual chat, and community users confirm using it as their daily coding harness with LSP integration inside editors. Missing for 10: independent hands-on review specifically of the IDE-extension chat UX (most community feedback is TUI/CLI-focused) and no screenshots/deep detail on in-IDE chat UI beyond shortcuts.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any editor Available as a terminal interface, desktop app, and IDE extension”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity7/10

   Antigravity is a VSCode-fork IDE with an editor view offering tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a context-aware conversational agent, confirmed by community hands-on reports of using it like Cursor. This directly supports in-IDE chat for contextual help. missing for 10: independent review specifically praising chat UX/quality (community notes mixed quality/performance complaints), and no detailed walkthrough of the chat interface itself beyond high-level docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Google Antigravity's Editor view offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurab…”
   • [claimed-docs] “offers tab autocompletion, natural language code commands, and a configurable, and context-aware configurable agent”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Users can select which reasoning model they want to use within the model selector drop-down under the conversation prompt box”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Session management

1. developerReview diffs visually and run multiple sessions side by side in a desktop app

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode has a documented desktop app with tabs (opencode-docs-19) and multi-session support to run multiple agents in parallel (opencode-docs-17/38), plus session share links; existence of the desktop app is also confirmed on GitHub (opencode-gh-1). However, there is no evidence describing a visual diff-review UI in the desktop app specifically — docs focus on TUI/terminal split views and file references rather than a diff viewer. Missing for 10: explicit documentation or screenshots of a visual diff/code-review interface in the desktop app, and independent/hands-on confirmation of side-by-side session usage in that app.

   • [claimed-docs] “Introducing tabs for desktop. Available on macOS, Windows, and Linux.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [github] “OpenCode is also available as a desktop application.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any editor Available as a terminal interface, desktop app, and IDE extension”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity8/10

   Antigravity's desktop app (confirmed as a VSCode-style editor) ships a dedicated 'Review Changes' diff viewer with whitespace filtering and syntax-highlighted artifacts (antigravity-docs-33, -34, -30), plus explicit support for running multiple agents/sessions in parallel across independent projects and worktrees from one command center (antigravity-docs-1, -37, -38, -10). Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of the side-by-side multi-session UI specifically (community evidence mostly discusses general bugs/instability rather than this feature directly).

   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Added a "Hide Whitespace Changes" option to the Review Changes overflow menu and file diff viewers to filter out whitespace-only edits.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Code and data artifacts like SQL and JSONL files now open in a virtualized viewer with syntax highlighting and line numbers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The agent always halts and requests your explicit approval before proceeding with proposed changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadManage multiple agent-driven coding sessions from one unified workspace

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports multi-session workflows ('Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project'), tabs for desktop, share links for sessions, and a headless server that a WebUI can connect to across multiple backends, which community evidence corroborates ('WebUI... can connect to multiple OpenCode backends at once'). This directly matches an engineering-lead managing multiple agent sessions from one unified workspace. Missing for 10: no first-party documentation of team/organization-level oversight (e.g., viewing/managing sessions started by other engineers) and some reported bugs in session state restoration temper reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Introducing tabs for desktop. Available on macOS, Windows, and Linux.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity8/10

   Antigravity's docs describe a unified 'command center' (antigravity-docs-37) that lets a lead orchestrate multiple autonomous agents in parallel across projects (antigravity-docs-1, antigravity-docs-10), grouped into Projects spanning folders/repos with scoped permissions (antigravity-docs-5, antigravity-docs-17, antigravity-docs-35), plus worktree isolation (antigravity-docs-38), scheduled/background tasks (antigravity-docs-2, antigravity-docs-39), subagent delegation (antigravity-docs-18/19), and even remote browser-based control of running sessions (antigravity-docs-26). This directly matches the engineering-lead's need to manage many concurrent agent sessions from one place. Missing for 10: independent verification of managing many simultaneous sessions at scale, and community reports note real stability/reliability issues (antigravity-comm-6, antigravity-comm-8, antigravity-comm-9) that temper confidence though they don't specifically contradict the multi-session orchestration claim.

   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Orchestrate multiple autonomous agents working in parallel across independent projects.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Group your conversations into Projects, which can span multiple folders and support custom settings and scoped permissions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “a project can work with one folder or multiple folders (e.g., a frontend and a backend repo), providing your agents with all of the context …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate routine checks with Scheduled Tasks, simply define a cron schedule and the agents start and run autonomously in the background.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity Remote Control allows you to securely connect to and drive your Antigravity 2.0 desktop sessions running across your machines fr…”
   • [community] “Google made its lack of interest in Antigravity IDE obvious from very early. Updates were few and far between and app-breaking bugs stuck ar…”
   • [community] “It's not even good, honestly. I was using it for couple weeks before dropping that 2 months ago. The model was not good and slow, the harnes…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Terminal workflow

1. developerRun a coding agent locally from my terminal

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode is explicitly a terminal-based coding agent, installable via curl/npm, run with `opencode` command in any terminal, with rich CLI docs and confirmed hands-on community usage as a daily local terminal harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark/security audit fully vetting the terminal experience beyond anecdotal reports (some report TUI compatibility bugs on specific setups).

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://opencode.ai/docs/cli/”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullprobed8/10

   Google Antigravity ships an official CLI product (antigravity-cli) with terminal-native features like slash commands, headless/non-interactive mode for scripting, sandboxing, vim-mode editing, and config management, explicitly designed to run agents locally from the terminal, and a community comment confirms using 'Antigravity CLI with vscode' works fine. Missing for 10: deeper independent hands-on reviews specifically of the CLI (most community feedback focuses on the IDE, not the terminal tool) and no third-party benchmarks of terminal performance/reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple agents working in parallel, so larger tasks get tackled faster.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Navigate your entire workflow via standard terminal shortcuts: adjust permissions, themes, and preferences via /config and type /keybindings…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [claimed-docs] “Vim editor mode replaces the editing model in every multi-line input surface of the CLI”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://antigravity.google/product/antigravity-cli”
   • [community] “I much prefer using Gemini CLI in combination with vscode. It works like a charm. Now, I'll do the same with Antigravity CLI and vscode. It …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerRun the agent non-interactively in scripts for workflow automation

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   The `opencode run` CLI command explicitly supports non-interactive one-shot execution (e.g. `opencode run "Explain how closures work"`), and `--auto` flag auto-approves permissions for unattended runs, plus `opencode serve` exposes a headless HTTP/OpenAPI server and JS/TS SDK for scripted/programmatic control, all fitting workflow automation. Missing for 10: independent hands-on evidence of non-interactive scripting reliability/CI use, and no dedicated exit-code/output-format docs for pipeline integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attach a terminal to an already running OpenCode backend server started via `serve` or `web` commands.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Official docs explicitly describe a headless mode: 'Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output,' directly matching the workflow-automation story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of headless CI usage and details on machine-readable output format/exit codes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edit, orchestrate, and build all in natural language. Tell your agents what you need, and they’ll work on getting it done.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create or download fully customizable skills to further your agent’s autonomy and transform how you get work done.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialprobed6/10

   OpenCode ships a headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing a documented OpenAPI spec (confirmed live at openapi.json) plus a JS/TS SDK explicitly for 'building integrations and controlling opencode programmatically,' and the TUI/WebUI can drive a remote backend — community confirms this works day-to-day including from mobile. However, no evidence explicitly enumerates full feature parity (e.g., agent skill management, permission config, enterprise SSO settings) as exposed via the API/SDK, and there's no independent audit confirming 1:1 UI/API parity. missing for 10: explicit parity documentation covering all UI-only features (skills, permission prompts, enterprise SSO), independent verification of full API coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows using the TUI with a remote OpenCode backend.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialprobed4/10

   Antigravity offers an Agent SDK (Python programmable) and a headless/non-interactive CLI mode for scripting agent tasks, plugins, MCP, and hooks, suggesting substantial programmatic access to agent capabilities. However, there is no documented public REST/HTTP API or OpenAPI spec (probe explicitly found all openapi.json candidate paths 404'd), and no evidence that UI-only features like Remote Control, Editor tab-autocompletion, artifact review UI, or scheduled task UI are fully exposed via API parity. missing for 10: a documented public API/OpenAPI spec, confirmation that all UI features (remote control, artifact review, scheduling UI) have API equivalents, and independent verification of API-UI parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Agent SDK gives you the same tools, agent loop, and context management that power Google Antigravity, programmable in Python.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Layer custom Python callables, Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, and reusable agent skills over our built-in filesystem and terminal too…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://antigravity.google/openapi.json, https://antigravity.google/swagger.json, https://antigravit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence describes an explicit data-export feature or open-format portability guarantee for OpenCode; while it is open-source and stores config/sessions locally, there's no documented 'export all my data and leave' capability, and community threads even note telemetry sent to OpenCode's own servers with no way to disable it (opencode-comm-2), undercutting a clean data-portability story.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data export, open-format portability, or account/data deletion features for Antigravity; docs cover projects, agents, artifacts, and CLI but never data portability or export-and-leave capability.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's docs explicitly describe it as "open source" and a public GitHub repo exists (opencode-gh-1), and community members confirm they read and learned from the actual source code (opencode-comm-6), corroborating that the source is genuinely accessible. missing for 10: explicit citation of the license name/type (e.g., MIT/Apache) in the evidence pack, and a first-party statement pointing to the license file itself.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [github] “OpenCode is also available as a desktop application.”
   • [community] “OpenCode source code is even more awesome. I have learned so much from the way they have organized tools, agents, settings and prompts. mode…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence of any open-source license or public source repository for Antigravity; it appears closed-source (VSCode fork distributed as binary download, third-party unofficial extensions noted). Nothing in the docs or community reports references source availability or a license.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userSelf-host the core product

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullprobed8/10

   OpenCode is open source and installable via CLI, with a documented `opencode serve` headless HTTP server exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, plus SDK and remote/TUI client support, enabling full self-hosting of the core agent; community evidence confirms real-world self-hosted use ('opencode serve' accessible remotely) though also flags security hardening gaps around the server. missing for 10: independent audit confirming production-grade self-hosted security, and clearer official self-hosting/deployment guide beyond the serve command docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attach a terminal to an already running OpenCode backend server started via `serve` or `web` commands.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”
   • [community] “When server is enabled, any web page served from localhost/127.0.0.1 can execute code; any local process can execute code without authentica…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack indicates Antigravity can be self-hosted; it is described only as a downloadable desktop app/IDE/CLI/SDK connecting to Google's cloud-hosted models, with account/entitlement gating and TOS restrictions mentioned in community reports, but no self-hosted server or on-prem deployment option is documented.

   • [claimed-docs] “Visit antigravity.google/download to download Google Antigravity 2.0. Select your operating system below”
   • [claimed-docs] “Antigravity 2.0 serves as your AI agents’ central command center, providing a unified platform to launch, monitor, and orchestrate their act…”
   • [community] “don't buy Google AI subscription before you confirm you have 'Antigravity entitlement'... You can have verified account, bank card added, ac…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended. My friend got a ban by using Pi agent with Antigravity. They un-ba…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Authentication

1. developerAuthenticate with an API key instead of an account login

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports configuring API keys for any LLM provider as an alternative to logging in via account-based options like GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT Plus/Pro, giving developers a direct API-key auth path rather than requiring account login. Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of the API key setup flow itself and details on key storage/security beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “With OpenCode you can use any LLM provider by configuring their API keys.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode Zen is a list of tested and verified models provided by the OpenCode team.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Evidence shows Antigravity requires a Google account/login and even ties usage to 'Antigravity entitlement' on that account (comm-19), with account-level bans possible (comm-17, comm-20); no docs or CLI reference mention an API-key authentication mode as an alternative to account login.

   • [community] “Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended. My friend got a ban by using Pi agent with Antigravity. They un-ba…”
   • [community] “don't buy Google AI subscription before you confirm you have 'Antigravity entitlement'... You can have verified account, bank card added, ac…”
   • [community] “Banning the entire account rather than AI access is wildly user hostile... And then you get to fight the support bots and eventually go to t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadAuthenticate through an enterprise identity or cloud platform for compliance and scalability

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   OpenCode has a documented enterprise config that integrates with SSO and enforces a centralized internal AI gateway, directly addressing enterprise identity/compliance needs, and supports login via GitHub Copilot/OpenAI accounts. However, there's no independent corroboration of this enterprise SSO feature in practice, no detail on supported identity providers (SAML/OIDC specifics), and community discussion focuses on telemetry/security concerns rather than confirming enterprise auth workflows. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of SSO integration, details on supported IdPs, and evidence of enterprise customers actually using this for compliance/scalability.

   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence of SSO/SAML/OIDC, Google Workspace/Cloud IAM enterprise login, or any enterprise identity federation for Antigravity; docs mention only Google account sign-in and entitlement issues, with community reports of account suspensions rather than enterprise auth support. Missing for 10: SSO/SAML/OIDC support, Google Cloud IAM or Workspace admin console integration, enterprise provisioning/SCIM documentation.

   • [community] “don't buy Google AI subscription before you confirm you have 'Antigravity entitlement'... You can have verified account, bank card added, ac…”
   • [community] “Banning the entire account rather than AI access is wildly user hostile... And then you get to fight the support bots and eventually go to t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerSign in with my existing product subscription plan to use the coding agent

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode docs explicitly support signing in with existing subscriptions—GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT Plus/Pro—rather than requiring separate API keys, and community comments confirm using subscriptions (e.g., Codex $200/mo) inside OpenCode. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of the Copilot/ChatGPT login flow itself and broader coverage of other subscription providers beyond these two.

   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “GitHub Copilot Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “ChatGPT Plus/Pro Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “OpenCode is awesome. Claude Code is nothing special at all. Last month I switched to just using OpenCode with a Codex $200/mo subscription, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No documentation describes signing in with an existing Google AI/Gemini subscription plan to unlock Antigravity access, and community reports directly state that users with an active AI Pro subscription still could not use even the free tier without a separate 'Antigravity entitlement.' missing for 10: any first-party docs describing subscription-based sign-in, evidence of successful subscription-linked access, and confirmation that paid Google AI plans map directly to Antigravity usage.

   • [community] “don't buy Google AI subscription before you confirm you have 'Antigravity entitlement'... You can have verified account, bank card added, ac…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended. My friend got a ban by using Pi agent with Antigravity. They un-ba…”
   • [community] “On the pricing page it says free individual plan with 'generous rate limits'. I gave it an HTML file and 2 minutes later got: 'Model quota l…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. developerSign in with a personal account to get free-tier access without managing API keys

   weight 1 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's docs explicitly offer 'Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account' and 'Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account,' letting a developer authenticate with an existing personal subscription instead of managing provider API keys, and OpenCode Zen is noted to include a free coding model. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on user reports specifically confirming this login flow (community comments focus on API keys/local models, not the Copilot/ChatGPT login path), and clarity on any usage limits tied to the free tier.

   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “GitHub Copilot Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “ChatGPT Plus/Pro Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “OpenCode source code is even more awesome. I have learned so much from the way they have organized tools, agents, settings and prompts. mode…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted3/10

   Vendor pages advertise a free individual plan with no mention of API key management, implying sign-in-with-personal-account access, but community hands-on reports directly contradict the free-tier promise — one user got a 'Model quota limit exceeded' error within minutes despite the 'generous rate limits' claim, and another describes being locked out of even the free tier due to an 'Antigravity entitlement' gate despite having an active subscription. missing for 10: first-party documentation explicitly describing the personal-account sign-in flow and free-tier terms, and independent confirmation that free-tier access works reliably without unexpected quota/entitlement blocks.

   • [community] “On the pricing page it says free individual plan with 'generous rate limits'. I gave it an HTML file and 2 minutes later got: 'Model quota l…”
   • [community] “don't buy Google AI subscription before you confirm you have 'Antigravity entitlement'... You can have verified account, bank card added, ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Visit antigravity.google/download to download Google Antigravity 2.0. Select your operating system below”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Model choice

1. developerLet the tool automatically pick the best model for each task

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence shows OpenCode supports many providers/models and lets users manually assign a model per agent or switch via Tab, but nothing indicates the tool automatically selects the optimal model for a given task — community feedback even confirms model/provider choice is manual and sometimes annoying to manage across sessions.

   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the Tab key to switch between primary agents during a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Docs describe a manual model selector dropdown where users choose the reasoning model themselves (antigravity-docs-16), not an automatic 'best model per task' selection mechanism; no evidence anywhere of automatic model routing or task-based model optimization.

   • [claimed-docs] “Users can select which reasoning model they want to use within the model selector drop-down under the conversation prompt box”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerChoose which underlying AI model powers my session from multiple providers

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports configuring any LLM provider via API keys, lists 75+ providers through Models.dev including local models, offers a curated OpenCode Zen model list, and supports logging in with GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT Plus/Pro accounts. Community evidence corroborates real-world use with multiple providers (Claude, Gemini, local llama.cpp, Qwen) and per-agent model selection. Missing for 10: some community reports note model/provider switching across sessions can be buggy or annoying, a minor UX caveat.

   • [claimed-docs] “With OpenCode you can use any LLM provider by configuring their API keys.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode Zen is a list of tested and verified models provided by the OpenCode team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any model 75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullcommunity8/10

   Docs explicitly describe a model selector dropdown for choosing reasoning models, and community hands-on evidence confirms multiple providers (Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-OSS 120B) are selectable, not locked to Gemini only. Missing for 10: pricing/tier restrictions per model and independent benchmarking of model-switching quality across providers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Users can select which reasoning model they want to use within the model selector drop-down under the conversation prompt box”
   • [community] “I went ahead and downloaded it, it looks to be a VSCode fork very similar to Cursor, with support for Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and G…”
   • [community] “Nice to see that it's not locked to just Gemini models.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack of a region/residency selection feature for data storage; OpenCode's docs focus on provider choice, self-hosting, and enterprise SSO, none of which address data residency. In fact, community reports indicate telemetry is always sent to OpenCode's own servers with no way to disable it, further suggesting the user lacks control over where certain data goes.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions data residency, region selection, or storage location controls; only a telemetry on/off toggle is documented, which does not address data residency. Missing for 10: any documentation of regional data storage options, residency guarantees, or enterprise data-location controls.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation of any setting, policy, or opt-out mechanism for preventing user data/code from being used to train AI models (OpenCode's docs focus on providers, agents, permissions, IDE integration, etc., none addressing training-data usage). Community evidence actually suggests the opposite direction of concern: telemetry is sent to OpenCode's own servers even with locally-hosted models with no way to disable it, which further undermines confidence that user data is protected from being retained/used.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Antigravity's settings docs mention a Telemetry toggle to enable/disable sharing interaction logs 'to improve models,' which is the only evidence addressing training-data opt-out; there's no further detail on scope, default state, or enterprise data-processing guarantees. Missing for 10: independent verification the toggle actually excludes data from training, clarity on default setting, and any enterprise/DPA-level documentation of data usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “toggle Telemetry (enable/disable sharing interaction logs to improve models)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No documentation describes any data retention or deletion controls, and community evidence indicates the opposite: OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers even with local models, with no environment variables or flags to disable it, suggesting no user-facing data controls exist.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention a Telemetry toggle to enable/disable sharing interaction logs, which is a privacy-related control, but there is no documented mechanism for viewing, exporting, or deleting stored data/history, nor any stated retention policy. Missing for 10: explicit data deletion controls, data export/retention policy documentation, and independent confirmation these settings work as described.

   • [claimed-docs] “toggle Telemetry (enable/disable sharing interaction logs to improve models)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode!disputedcontradicted2/10

   OpenCode's docs make no mention of a telemetry opt-out setting, and a community report explicitly states OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers even with locally hosted models, with no environment variables, flags, or config options to disable it. This is a first-party-vs-hands-on-evidence conflict: no documented opt-out mechanism exists, and independent evidence claims none is available. missing for 10: any official docs describing a telemetry toggle/opt-out, first-party acknowledgment of telemetry collection, and any evidence the reported issue was fixed.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs confirm a settings toggle to enable/disable telemetry ('sharing interaction logs to improve models'), giving users a direct opt-out. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that the toggle fully stops all data collection, and no detail on what telemetry remains even when disabled.

   • [claimed-docs] “toggle Telemetry (enable/disable sharing interaction logs to improve models)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data governance

1. engineering-leadOpt out of having my code and prompts used for AI model training

   weight 1 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No documentation exists describing a training-data opt-out or data-use policy for prompts/code; in fact community evidence indicates OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers with no way to disable it, even when using local models, suggesting the opposite of user control over data usage.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs mention a Telemetry toggle to 'enable/disable sharing interaction logs to improve models,' which functions as an opt-out from data being used for model improvement, but there is no explicit documentation framing this as a training opt-out for enterprise/engineering-lead governance needs (e.g., no data-processing agreement, no distinction between prompts/code vs telemetry, no enterprise admin-level control). Missing for 10: explicit statement that code/prompts are excluded from training, org-wide/admin-level enforcement of the opt-out, and independent confirmation the toggle actually stops training use.

   • [claimed-docs] “toggle Telemetry (enable/disable sharing interaction logs to improve models)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Pr review

1. developerHave the agent stage changes, write commit messages, create branches, and open pull requests

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs explicitly describe GitHub integration where OpenCode 'will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes' and can execute tasks via mentions in GitHub Actions, covering branch creation and PR opening; permission config also governs whether actions like git operations auto-run or prompt. However, there's no explicit mention of staging changes or generating commit messages as a distinct capability, and no independent/community evidence corroborates the PR-creation workflow in practice. missing for 10: explicit documentation of commit message generation/staging step, independent hands-on verification of the branch+PR workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialclaimed3/10

   Antigravity's agents can operate the terminal and natively support Git worktrees, which implies they could run git commands like staging, committing, and branching, but no documentation explicitly describes agent-driven commit message generation, branch creation, or PR opening (e.g., GitHub integration). Missing for 10: explicit docs on commit-message authoring, branch creation workflow, and pull-request creation/integration with GitHub/GitLab.

   • [claimed-docs] “Worktree support: Projects natively support Git worktrees, allowing agents to operate in isolated background folders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Able to autonomously operate across your editor, terminal, and browser.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build AI agents that autonomously read files, run commands, edit code, and more.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGet automatic code review with contextual feedback on every pull request

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode has a GitHub Actions integration (mention /opencode or /oc in a comment) and a read-only 'plan' agent that can review/suggest changes without modifying code, which can be used for PR feedback, but this requires an explicit manual mention rather than automatically triggering contextual review on every PR. Missing for 10: documented automatic/triggerless review on every new PR, evidence of inline contextual comments on diffs, and independent confirmation of this review workflow in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   Antigravity offers in-editor 'Review Changes' diff viewing and Artifact-based plan review, but there is no evidence of a GitHub/GitLab pull-request bot or CI-integrated review that automatically posts contextual feedback on every PR. The CLI headless mode allows scripting into CI, but no docs describe an automated PR-review workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The agent always halts and requests your explicit approval before proceeding with proposed changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Added a "Hide Whitespace Changes" option to the Review Changes overflow menu and file diff viewers to filter out whitespace-only edits.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerInspect diffs and run checks to catch problems before merging

   weight 3 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode offers a read-only 'plan' agent for reviewing suggested changes without applying them and a permission system that can prompt before actions run, plus GitHub PR/Actions integration for submitting changes — these provide some review-safety scaffolding. However there is no documented diff-viewing UI or built-in test/lint/check-running capability before merge. Missing for 10: explicit diff inspection tooling, integrated test/lint/CI check execution, and independent evidence that these safety mechanisms actually prevent bad merges.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity~partialcommunity6/10

   Docs describe a Review Changes/diff viewer (with whitespace filtering, syntax highlighting) and Artifacts containing code diffs, plus mandatory human approval before changes are applied, and subagents/CI headless mode that can run tests. This covers diff inspection and pre-merge gating, but there's no dedicated 'run checks' feature (e.g., integrated linting/test-run summary) beyond subagent test delegation, and no independent hands-on confirmation that this workflow reliably catches problems — community reports instead highlight safety failures (accidental deletion, data exfiltration) that occurred despite review/approval mechanisms. Missing for 10: independent verification that diff review + checks actually catch bugs pre-merge, and a dedicated automated check/test-report feature beyond ad-hoc subagent delegation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Planning Mode: The agent plans thoroughly before executing tasks... produces structured implementation plans called Artifacts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The agent always halts and requests your explicit approval before proceeding with proposed changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Artifacts include rich markdown plans (Implementation Plans), code diffs, architecture diagrams, images, and browser recordings.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Added a "Hide Whitespace Changes" option to the Review Changes overflow menu and file diff viewers to filter out whitespace-only edits.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Code and data artifacts like SQL and JSONL files now open in a virtualized viewer with syntax highlighting and line numbers”
   • [claimed-docs] “an agent can delegate tasks—such as running tests or performing extensive codebase searches—to dedicated subagents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run Antigravity CLI non-interactively to script agent tasks, integrate with CI pipelines, and capture machine-readable output.”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”
   • [community] “absolutely no sympathy for someone running Antigravity in Turbo mode (this is not the default and it clearly states that Antigravity auto-ex…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Safe execution

1. engineering-leadControl which external tools and integrations the agent is allowed to access

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   OpenCode's permission system lets leads set actions to auto-run, prompt, or block per tool/input, and MCP servers (external tools) are explicitly added/configured (docs-4/23/41). Enterprise config also lets orgs force use of an internal AI gateway and SSO, further restricting what integrations agents can reach (docs-33/50). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that permission rules reliably block disallowed MCP tool calls in practice, and finer detail on allow/deny lists for specific external tool names beyond the general permission object.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the permission config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “For most permissions, you can use an object to apply different actions based on the tool input.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Through the central config, OpenCode can integrate with your organization’s SSO provider for authentication.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted5/10

   Antigravity docs describe granular controls—Deny/Ask/Allow permission lists, MCP server configuration, plugins bundling MCP servers, and sandboxing that blocks sensitive files—giving engineering leads levers to restrict tool/integration access (antigravity-docs-23, antigravity-docs-42, antigravity-docs-12, antigravity-docs-28, antigravity-docs-48). However, independent security reports document that these controls were bypassed in practice: Gemini accessed .env files despite being configured not to, and the default Allowlist shipped with webhook.site, which was used as a live exfiltration vector—directly contradicting the claim that admins can reliably restrict external access (antigravity-comm-11, antigravity-comm-12, antigravity-comm-13). Missing for 10: evidence of a fix/patch to these bypasses, and no first-party acknowledgment/remediation documentation confirming the control now holds as designed.

   • [claimed-docs] “Permissions are evaluated across three distinct access lists: Deny... Ask... Allow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Permissions are evaluated across three distinct access lists: Deny...Ask...Allow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access plugins, MCP, skills, and hooks configurations instantly via slash commands, quickly enhancing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Plugins are namespaced bundles that allow you to extend Antigravity’s capabilities by grouping skills, rules, MCP servers, and hooks into a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity exfiltrates data via indirect prompt injection attack: Gemini is not supposed to have access to .env files with default s…”
   • [community] “The default Allowlist provided with Antigravity includes 'webhook.site', which was used as an exfiltration vector for secrets.”
   • [community] “Antigravity was also vulnerable to the classic Markdown image exfiltration bug, reported a few days prior and flagged as 'intended behavior'…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadHave the agent operate inside a sandbox when interacting with code, tools, and network resources

   weight 2 · round to Google Antigravity
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode's documentation only describes a permission system (auto-approve/prompt/block) and an 'external_directory' toggle for path access — not an isolated sandbox for code execution, tool calls, or network access. Community evidence (opencode-comm-18) even flags that the local server mode allows any local process or webpage to execute code without authentication, the opposite of sandboxed isolation, and there is no first-party claim of container/VM-based sandboxing to dispute.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [community] “When server is enabled, any web page served from localhost/127.0.0.1 can execute code; any local process can execute code without authentica…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Antigravity CLI docs describe a real sandbox mechanism (sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env blocked, unmounted paths invisible) plus a permission allow/ask/deny system, suggesting sandboxed tool/network access is a documented feature. However, independent reports concretely contradict this: Gemini bypassed its own .env protection to exfiltrate secrets via indirect prompt injection using an allow-listed exfiltration endpoint, a known markdown-image exfiltration bug was dismissed as 'intended behavior,' and unrestrained terminal auto-execution led to a user's entire drive being deleted — showing the sandbox/permission boundary is not reliably enforced in practice. Missing for 10: consistent enforcement of sandbox boundaries against prompt-injection/exfiltration, first-party acknowledgment/fix of these incidents, and independent verification that the CLI's stated sandbox extends to the IDE agent's file/network access.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sensitive files like ~/.ssh and .env are blocked, anything not explicitly mounted is invisible inside the sandbox”
   • [claimed-docs] “Permissions are evaluated across three distinct access lists: Deny... Ask... Allow”
   • [claimed-docs] “MCP lets Antigravity fetch structured context directly or execute safe actions on your behalf when needed.”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity exfiltrates data via indirect prompt injection attack: Gemini is not supposed to have access to .env files with default s…”
   • [community] “The default Allowlist provided with Antigravity includes 'webhook.site', which was used as an exfiltration vector for secrets.”
   • [community] “Antigravity was also vulnerable to the classic Markdown image exfiltration bug, reported a few days prior and flagged as 'intended behavior'…”
   • [community] “Google Antigravity just deleted the contents of whole drive - came down to commanding a deletion of a 'directory with space in the name' wit…”
   • [community] “The most useful suggestion from the Reddit thread: turn off 'Terminal Command Auto Execution' via File > Preferences > Antigravity Settings …”
   • [community] “absolutely no sympathy for someone running Antigravity in Turbo mode (this is not the default and it clearly states that Antigravity auto-ex…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Security checks

1. engineering-leadSee license and public-code matching references for AI-suggested code

   weight 1 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence of any license or public-code matching/attribution feature for AI-suggested code in OpenCode's docs or community reports; the product focuses on agent workflows, permissions, and MCP integration but nothing about code provenance or license scanning.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions license compliance checks, public-code/OSS matching, provenance detection, or any similar review-safety feature for AI-suggested code; the docs focus on agents, artifacts, permissions, and workflow tooling with no mention of license scanning.

   ⚑ flag

2. developerGet contextual explanations and automatic fixes for security vulnerabilities

   weight 2 · round drawn
   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode is a general coding agent with plan/explore/build agents and permission controls, but no evidence describes any security-vulnerability scanning, contextual vulnerability explanations, or automatic security fix generation as a feature. Community evidence even highlights unresolved security reports and vulnerabilities in OpenCode itself, not a capability to detect/fix vulnerabilities in user code.

   ⚑ flag

   Google Antigravity—none0/10

   No evidence that Antigravity provides security-vulnerability-specific explanations or automatic fixes; the docs describe general agentic coding, planning, and review features but never mention vulnerability scanning or security remediation. Community evidence instead highlights security *problems* in Antigravity itself (prompt injection exfiltration), not a vulnerability-fixing capability for users' code.

   ⚑ flag