Every source behind the read

91 sources in All practitioners, with product documentation Showing all 91 sources

1. Mixed

   vwart, GitHub user filing an issue against OpenHands/OpenHands

   Unable to connect to server is now happening everywhere, making the product unusableGitHub issue on OpenHands/OpenHands

   On OpenHands Cloud, nearly every conversation left idle for about 20 minutes could no longer reach its server, and work not yet pushed was lost along with the tokens spent on it.

   "Nearly every conversation reaches a state in which it is "unable to connect to server" forever. Mostly not having pushed anything, so all the work and tokens that were used are lost."

   Published Oct 25, 2026self-described: OpenHands Cloud on macOS, latest Agent Canvas

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on latest cloud version; Artifact checked (log)

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   1 artifact (log)

   Date and version

   2026-10-25, latest cloud version

   Counts toward

   Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

   Not counted

   Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Reliability, regressions: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
   • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   OpenHands Cloud, latest Agent Canvas

2. Mixed

   shukriaprinters, GitHub user filing an issue against OpenHands/OpenHands

   Agent abandons the current goal, reverts to an older instruction context, and reports premature completionGitHub issue on OpenHands/OpenHands

   In a long OpenHands Cloud session, the agent dropped the user's newest goal, went back to an older security-audit task, and reported all work complete while a named deliverable was still unbuilt.

   "The agent silently abandoned the user's **current** goal and reverted to an **older** instruction context, then reported the task as complete while a named deliverable was still missing."

   Published Oct 23, 2026self-described: Private TypeScript project on OpenHands Cloud, one session past 4,355 events and 20 condensations

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on OpenHands Cloud (Agent Canvas)

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-10-23, OpenHands Cloud (Agent Canvas)

   Counts toward

   Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
   • Needs close steering: Raised as a concern

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   OpenHands Cloud, Agent Canvas web GUI, default model profile

3. Mixed

   thelodge-network, GitHub user filing an issue against OpenHands/OpenHands

   docker_runtime hardcodes container --user <host uid:gid>, breaks under a rootless Docker daemonGitHub issue on OpenHands/OpenHands

   Self-hosted on a rootless Docker daemon, OpenHands could not start conversation sandboxes: each exited with a permission error and the server returned 502. Tests showed the sandbox ran when the mounts were opened or the container ran as uid 0.

   "The sandbox exits 1 with a `PermissionError: [Errno 13]` trying to stat `workspace/openhands_agent_server_config.json` inside the bind mount…"

   Published Oct 17, 2026self-described: Self-hosted OpenHands agent server on a rootless Docker daemon

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; structured test; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on openhands-agent-server 1.49.6

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Ran a structured test

   Support

   1 artifact (benchmark output)

   Date and version

   2026-10-17, openhands-agent-server 1.49.6

   Counts toward

   Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Measured

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   openhands-agent-server 1.49.6

4. Mixed

   rsync, Hacker News commenter

   Comment on: Pi 1.0Hacker News comment

   Had decent success with OpenHands but disliked its Docker infrastructure and emoji-heavy output, and now uses the Pi agent exclusively.

   Published Oct 1, 2026self-described: Runs Pi inside GNU Screen in macOS Terminal after using OpenHands

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-10-01

   Counts toward

   Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
   • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

5. Positive

   Tomas Hajek, co-founder, managing consultant, and lead architect at Xper Consulting AS

   Our shared agent workflow now includes review and repairCompany founder's blog post, hajek.no

   Xper runs an OpenHands-based agent environment in its own cloud for DocEngine. Agents take tasks from GitHub Issues, open a pull request, review and fix their own change in a repeated loop, and a human approves the merge before automatic deployment.

   "We now run an OpenHands-based agent environment in our own cloud. We have one place to change the context our agents use, their skills, and their plugins."

   "It reviews the change, fixes the issues it finds, and runs that review-and-fix loop again."

   Published Sep 17, 2026self-described: Norwegian document-automation consultancy building its DocEngine product with agents in its own cloud

   Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Self-described; Ran the rollout

   Role

   Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

   Relationship

   Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

   How they know

   Ran the rollout

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-09-17

   Counts toward

   Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Counts toward

   Operational control, admin control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • End-to-end execution: Positive
   • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
   • Async delegation: Positive
   • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Hands-off agent

   Published on

   Engineering blogs & reviews

   Who

   Technical leadership

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Self-hosted OpenHands-based agent environment started from GitHub Issues

6. Positive

   flavienbwk, Freelance software consultant, author of Openvisor

   Comment on: Openvisor: Your own AI software consultancy (self-hosted)Hacker News comment

   One-person freelancer runs sandboxed OpenHands agents in production behind Openvisor; issues tagged auto-dev get built into PRs, though build quality is bounded by OpenHands defaults.

   Published Sep 1, 2026self-described: One-person freelance consultancy, client projects; runs in production (berwick.ai)

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; OpenHands partner: not counted as independent; Ran the rollout

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   partner (suspected); vendor employee (self disclosed); consultant or reseller (self disclosed)

   How they know

   Ran the rollout

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-09-01

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Not counted

   Its author sells a client service that runs on OpenHands agents and bills customers per token. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   OpenHands with default settings as the agent harness, docker compose on one VM

7. Positive

   Today's AI, YouTube creator

   OpenHands Agent Canvas Demo | AI Agent Builds and Tests a Python GradebookVideo, YouTube

   Agent Canvas planned, coded, tested and documented a dependency-free Python gradebook; Today's AI verifies the tests and stresses that human review is still needed.

   "Uh you can see that Asent Canvas can automate planning, coding, testing. But, human review still necessary. Uh the user basically responsible for defining the scope, project secret, inspecting general code, and deciding whether the evidence is sufficient."

   Published Aug 25, 2026self-described: Solo walkthrough of OpenHands Agent Canvas building a small Python project, rerun independently from the host

   Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

   Role

   Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-08-25

   Counts toward

   Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • End-to-end execution: Positive
   • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks

   Published on

   Talks & videos

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   OpenHands Agent Canvas (local, 2026)

8. Positive

   zepearl, Hacker News commenter

   Comment on: Ask HN: MacBook vs. Dedicated GPU for LLMHacker News comment

   zepearl programs with OpenHands on a local Qwen3.6 27B quantized model, switching models by task on their own machine.

   Published Jun 28, 2026self-described: Local models on their own hardware

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Qwen3.6 27B Q5_K_M

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-06-28, Qwen3.6 27B Q5_K_M

   Counts toward

   Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Model choice: Positive
   • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

   Published on

   Developer communities & issue trackers

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Still applicable

   Observed on

   Qwen3.6 27B Q5_K_M, local

9. Positive

   Prompt Engineer 48, YouTube creator

   I Made an Open-Source AI Fix My Code & Open a Pull Request (OpenHands)Video, YouTube

   On a VPS-hosted OpenHands using Claude Sonnet 4.6 through OpenRouter, the agent read a GitHub issue about completed to-dos showing as pending and a reversed priority sort, fixed the get-pending function, reported five tests passed and opened a pull request the author merged.

   "So, you can see this pull request. I did not write it. It was written by OpenHands. This is an open-source AI that uh it read the broken repo, found the bug, fixed it, and then opened this PR by itself. Okay? Then I went…"

   Published Jun 23, 2026self-described: Solo; deployed OpenHands on a Hostinger VPS (video sponsored by Hostinger) and gave it a real bug in a test repository

   Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Claude Sonnet 4.6; Specific details

   Role

   Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

   Relationship

   No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-06-23, Claude Sonnet 4.6

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Adoption and upkeep, setup: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • End-to-end execution: Positive
   • Model choice: Positive
   • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
   • Async delegation: Positive

   Published on

   Talks & videos

   Who

   Individual practitioner

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Still applicable

   Observed on

   OpenHands on a VPS, Claude Sonnet 4.6 via OpenRouter

10. Negative

    0xbadcafebee, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoEHacker News comment

    Describes OpenHands as a locally run, Codex or Claude Code style web UI for remote LLMs, but calls it clunky, limited and poorly designed, preferring OpenCode's web UI.

    Published Apr 30, 2026self-described: Remote information systems engineering professional

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Opinion

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-30

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

11. Mixed

    subhobroto, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: A good AGENTS.md is a model upgrade. A bad one is worse than no docs at allHacker News comment

    Says no agent they use, OpenHands included, could figure out their uv workspace layout unguided, so they rely on a written guideline file to steer it.

    Published Apr 29, 2026self-described: Solo Python projects using uv workspaces

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-29

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Written repository context improves results

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

12. Mixed

    Manriqueemanuel, Medium

    Building an Autonomous Coding Run with Ralphie, OpenHands, Ollama, and Vast.aiPersonal blog post, Medium

    Ran headless OpenHands on a Vast.ai VM with Ollama serving a Qwen3-family coding model. The GUI looked fine when it was not, the first autonomous runs exposed fake progress, and progress controllers and driver scripts were needed before a final burst ended with 48 passing tests and a stable MVP.

    Published Apr 8, 2026self-described: Solo experiment: unattended multi-run build of a Python product on a disposable Vast.ai GPU VM

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-08

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Written repository context improves results
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Hands-off agent
    • How much work should OpenHands take on before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Headless OpenHands on a Vast.ai VM, Ollama serving a Qwen3-family coding model

13. Mixed

    Smooth-Pipe6285, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Struggling to containerize OpenHands & OpenCode for OpenClaw orchestration + DGX Spark stuck in initial setupReddit post

    Running OpenHands in Docker as one agent under a local orchestrator, Smooth-Pipe6285 has the web UI working but cannot find the API endpoint to connect it over ACP.

    Published Mar 29, 2026self-described: Local homelab with an orchestrator, Docker, and a DGX Spark

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Specific details; Observed on ghcr.io/all-hands-ai/openhands:latest

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-29, ghcr.io/all-hands-ai/openhands:latest

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Docker image ghcr.io/all-hands-ai/openhands:latest

14. Negative

    juaps, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Mac keeps rebooting with LM Studio / MLX during long OpenHands sessions - anyone found a real fix?Reddit post

    Long OpenHands sessions on local Qwen and GLM models in LM Studio bring memory failures, model looping, broken tool calls, and even full reboots. The user juaps suspects LM Studio more than any one model.

    Published Mar 10, 2026self-described: Local models in LM Studio on a 48GB Mac

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-10

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    LM Studio, Qwen 3.5 27B and 35B, GLM 4.7

15. Mixed

    gnovak, GitHub user

    Resolver creates duplicate PR when model creates one independently via GitHub APIGitHub issue

    With the GitHub resolver on claude-opus-4-5, the model opened its own pull request through the GitHub API with the token in its sandbox, and the resolver then opened a second one.

    Published Feb 23, 2026self-described: OpenHands GitHub resolver with claude-opus-4-5

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on openhands-ai v1.4.0

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-23, openhands-ai v1.4.0

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Async delegation: Mixed or negative
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    GitHub resolver, claude-opus-4-5

16. Negative

    nealhamiltonjr, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    Both official installs on Debian 13, uv and Docker, hung on a spinning wheel because OpenHands could not connect to a sandbox. On the open issue, nealhamiltonjr saw no reply from the team.

    Published Feb 23, 2026self-described: Debian 13, official uv and Docker installs

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (issue)

    Date and version

    2026-02-23

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

17. Mixed

    LavaTiger99, GitHub user

    [Bug]: cannot use web interface from different machineGitHub issue

    Deployed on a dedicated server, the web interface loads but no conversation starts, because the worker container tries to connect on localhost when it should use the server's address.

    Published Jan 30, 2026self-described: OpenHands 1.2.1 on a dedicated Docker server

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (log); Observed on 1.2.1

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2026-01-30, 1.2.1

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Open source & self-hosting: Mixed or negative
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands 1.2.1

18. Mixed

    iWedmak, GitHub user

    [Bug]: openhands.app_server.errors.SandboxError: 500: Sandbox failed to start within 120sGitHub issue

    On OpenHands 1.2 installed with the README Docker command, conversations fail with "Sandbox failed to start within 120s". It sometimes starts normally, and for some repos and branches it starts fine while others time out.

    Published Jan 21, 2026self-described: Self-hosted OpenHands 1.x

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Observed on 1.2

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2026-01-21, 1.2

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

19. Positive

    Sina Pakazad, Vice President of Data Science at C3 AI

    Autonomous Coding Agents: Beyond Developer ProductivityCompany blog post, C3 AI Blog

    Pakazad and co-authors say C3 AI chose OpenHands as its coding agent for the C3 Agentic AI Platform: among existing agents, which they list beside Claude Code, Codex, Devin and Cursor, OpenHands Cloud stands out for full remote programmability in the cloud, controllable via SDKs like an LLM endpoint.

    "To this end, we have leveraged OpenHands as our ACA of choice."

    "Among existing ACAs, OpenHands (Cloud) stands out for providing full remote programmability and unconstrained interaction in the cloud, resulting in unlimited scalability."

    Published Dec 24, 2025C3 AI data science team building the C3 Agentic AI Platform, with Henrik Ohlsson and three co-authors

    Practitioner account; ran the rollout; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    OpenHands partner: not counted as independent; Ran the rollout; Observed on OpenHands (Cloud)

    Role

    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    partner (suspected); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-12-24, OpenHands (Cloud)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Operational control, models and deployment: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Not counted

    Its author's company sells a platform that it describes as powered by OpenHands. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    OpenHands Cloud driven through its SDKs inside the C3 Agentic AI Platform

20. Positive

    Rybens92, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    I vibe coded (I hope) useful tool for local LLMs inferenceReddit post

    With the OpenHands CLI and MiniMax M2 Rybens92 built and published a bash tool that installs and updates llama.cpp binaries, in about two days.

    Published Dec 17, 2025self-described: Solo project: a llama.cpp installer script

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Minimax M2

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (repository)

    Date and version

    2025-12-17, Minimax M2

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands CLI, MiniMax M2

21. Mixed

    morgaesis, GitHub user

    [Bug]: Locally mounted folders are chowned to rootGitHub issue

    Running locally with a mounted folder, each new conversation creates an unwanted git repository and gives the folder and every agent-created file to group root, so morgaesis runs chown by hand.

    Published Oct 1, 2025self-described: Local Docker install with a mounted project folder, OpenHands 0.57

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-10-01, 0.57, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.57, Docker

22. Mixed

    iurdhkpouytewwdbjo-source, GitHub user

    [Bug]: Missing required parameters for function 'str_replace_editor': {'security_risk'}GitHub issue

    Asked to add an HTML page, the agent failed every file edit with a missing-parameter error on claude-sonnet-4; switching to qwen3-coder-plus cleared it after one error.

    Published Sep 4, 2025self-described: OpenHands 0.55

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2025-09-04, 0.55, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.55, claude-sonnet-4

23. Mixed

    M. Chechulin, Senior Lead Software Developer at a mid-to-large company in Germany

    OpenSource agentic coding systems - what can they deliver for 10$Personal blog post, Medium

    Gave OpenHands, Cline and Goose US$10 each; OpenHands was the most stable (3 of 5, partial success) but overspent to US$14.97 and most often ignored instructions.

    Published Sep 1, 2025self-described: Pet project (Firefox chat-with-page extension), each tool given a US$10 Anthropic API budget; compared with Cline and Goose

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-09-01, claude-sonnet-4–20250514, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Discussed without concern
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks
    • The open alternative to closed agents
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands in local Docker with project root mounted, claude-sonnet-4-20250514 via Anthropic API

24. Positive

    Ancapistani, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: AI models need a virtual machineHacker News comment

    Has used OpenHands daily for months, locally, via CLI and in the cloud; says it is less polished than Devin but as capable, and the team is responsive to feedback.

    Published Aug 30, 2025self-described: Uses OpenHands daily in local, CLI and cloud setups

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-30, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • The open alternative to closed agents

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands local, CLI and cloud

25. Mixed

    jacobson_engineering, Reddit user in r/ChatGPTCoding

    Most value for money way to set a self coding AI server?Reddit post

    Building web apps with OpenHands, jacobson_engineering finds it works well only on Claude and needs a budget of at least US$50 in API spend to run without problems.

    Published Aug 28, 2025self-described: Building web apps with OpenHands and Replit

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-28, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • The model is the main lever
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Claude

26. Positive

    Rybens92, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    Rybens92 calls OpenHands the best alternative to proprietary coding agents and runs it on a US$10 or US$20 Chutes.ai subscription to avoid paying per token.

    Published Aug 27, 2025self-described: Personal use on a Chutes.ai model subscription

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Opinion; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-27, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Model choice: Positive
    • Usage and cost: Discussed without concern
    • The open alternative to closed agents

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Chutes.ai subscription

27. Mixed

    intellectronica, Reddit user in r/ChatGPTCoding

    Working with Asynchronous Coding AgentsReddit post

    Comparing asynchronous agents on issue-to-pull-request work, intellectronica rated OpenHands capable but in need of nudges on tests and CI, behind GitHub Copilot's agent on reliability.

    Published Aug 19, 2025self-described: Comparison of asynchronous coding agents on issue-to-pull-request work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-19, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Async delegation: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Discussed without concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

28. Negative

    wunderwuzzi, Security researcher (blog author)

    ZombAI Exploit with OpenHands: Prompt Injection To Remote Code ExecutionSecurity research blog post, Embrace The Red

    A website prompt injection made OpenHands download and run malware joining a C2 server; the sandbox limits but does not remove exposure, and disclosure got slow vendor responses.

    Published Aug 10, 2025self-described: Independent security testing; disclosed to All-Hands AI in March 2025, published after 140+ days

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-10, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

29. Negative

    wunderwuzzi, Security researcher (blog author)

    OpenHands and the Lethal Trifecta: How Prompt Injection Can Leak Access TokensSecurity research blog post, Embrace The Red

    Shows a prompt injection that makes OpenHands render a Markdown image and leak the GITHUB_TOKEN from its container, bypassing the model's initial refusals.

    Published Aug 9, 2025self-described: Independent security testing of the OpenHands agent

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-09, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, data control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

30. Positive

    incomingpain, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: Are you running local LLMs? What are your key use cases?Hacker News comment

    incomingpain calls Devstral with OpenHands their most reliable local coding setup, running a Q6 quant with 85,000 context in LM Studio on a 24 GB GPU.

    Published Aug 8, 2025self-described: Solo, local Python coding

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-08, Devstral, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Stability: Positive
    • Setup & runtime friction: Discussed without concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral (unsloth Q6_K_XL, 85k context) via LM Studio, 24 GB VRAM

31. Positive

    Ancapistani, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: OpenAI's new GPT-5 models announced early by GitHubHacker News comment

    Ancapistani uses OpenHands Cloud as their primary coding agent and adds a microagent whenever it makes an architectural choice they disagree with. The setup aligns OpenHands with their preferences over time.

    Published Aug 7, 2025self-described: Uses OpenHands microagents with organization-level configurations

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-07, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Written repository context improves results

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands Cloud (app.all-hands.dev), microagents

32. Mixed

    tbiens, GitHub user

    [Bug]: str_replace error when using qwen3 coder locally.GitHub issue

    The OpenHands CLI works well for tbiens with Devstral; Qwen3 Coder works 80 to 90% of the time but sometimes fails file edits with a malformed tool call.

    Published Aug 1, 2025self-described: OpenHands CLI 0.50.0 with local models

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2025-08-01, 0.50.0, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands CLI 0.50.0, Devstral and qwen3-coder-30b-a3b-instruct

33. Positive

    incomingpain, Hacker News commenter, self-described

    Comment on: Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-InstructHacker News comment

    Trying the model from the thread: Qwen Code fails to use tools and crashes, Aider was a huge waste of time, and OpenHands is working really well apart from occasional malformed str_replace tool-call errors. The jury is still out on whether it beats Devstral.

    Published Jul 31, 2025

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2025-07-31, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Unpredictable task success: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands with Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct run locally

34. Positive

    Isaac Flath, Independent consultant (per Substack author profile)

    OpenHands Agent Tool Review: A Smooth Migration with a Little GuidanceTool review, Elite AI Assisted Coding (Substack)

    OpenHands migrated their blog to a new framework with a plan step and a running local build, needing a few prompts and small manual fixes; Isaac Flath calls the experience largely positive.

    Published Jul 30, 2025self-described: Solo; migrating their Quarto blog to the Air web framework via OpenHands connected to GitHub

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-07-30, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Needs close steering: Discussed without concern
    • Once review and rework are counted, does OpenHands reduce total engineering time?: Net time saved
    • How much work should OpenHands take on before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

35. Positive

    Isaac Flath, Independent consultant (YouTube channel)

    Open Hands Tool ReviewVideo, YouTube

    Isaac Flath's video review follows a smooth migration from voice-prompted setup to a successful result, with minor issues to steer past.

    "…was migrating the blog. It was pretty positive. It wasn't fully autonomous. I never really expect these things to be completely hands-off where I don't have to think at all or do anything at all. I always hope they will be, but…"

    Published Jul 29, 2025self-described: Solo; migrating their Quarto blog to the Air web framework

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-07-29, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

36. Mixed

    b1uedust, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Considering RTX 4000 Blackwell for Local Agentic AIReddit post

    b1uedust runs OpenHands with LM Studio on a Mac mini and a 3080 Ti. Quantized 7B and 13B models held up on the Mac, larger ones were slow, and b1uedust is pricing a dedicated GPU.

    Published Jul 24, 2025self-described: Self-hosted homelab: OpenHands with LM Studio on an M4 Pro Mac mini and a 3080 Ti

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-07-24, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Setup & runtime friction: Discussed without concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    LM Studio, quantized 7B to 13B models

37. Positive

    intellectronica, Hacker News commenter, self-described

    Comment on: Switching to Claude Code and VSCode Inside DockerHacker News comment

    Points to open alternatives to Claude Code that run in any environment with any model and on your own economics, naming OpenHands and Codex CLI as current favorites.

    Published Jul 13, 2025

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Opinion; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-07-13, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Operational control, models and deployment: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Model choice: Positive
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • The open alternative to closed agents

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

38. Mixed

    BaxBit, GitHub user

    [Bug]: agent stuck in loop reading workspaceGitHub issue

    On OpenHands Cloud the agent kept repeating its first step, reading the workspace, even after the user stepped in to guide it.

    Published Jul 10, 2025self-described: OpenHands Cloud

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (screenshot)

    Date and version

    2025-07-10, cloud, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Needs close steering: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands Cloud

39. Mixed

    0x457, Hacker News commenter, self-described

    Comment on: Grok 4Hacker News comment

    Lists questions the author asks before handing work to an agent, given an AGENTS.md file, such as whether the agent can verify the solution itself and whether the starting context is enough. Recalls Claude and OpenHands instantly digging themselves holes before the author realized there was zero project context.

    Published Jul 10, 2025

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-07-10, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Needs close steering: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks
    • Written repository context improves results

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

40. Positive

    AICodeKing, YouTube creator (AI coding tools)

    OpenHands CLI + Gemini 2.5 Pro : This IS A REALLY AWESOME Alternative to CLAUDE CODE!Video, YouTube

    Finds the new OpenHands CLI fast and lightweight, and as agentic as Claude Code with Gemini 2.5 Pro. Notes it lacks MCP support and an SDK at the time.

    "…similar to claude code and ader. So that is good but that doesn't mean that it is the best because there are quite some shortcomings like a major one is that it doesn't support MCP. Yes, you can't add the MCP servers and…"

    Published Jun 21, 2025self-described: Solo; tried the new OpenHands CLI

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-06-21, Gemini 2.5 Pro, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • The open alternative to closed agents
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Hands-off agent

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands CLI, Gemini 2.5 Pro (also o3)

41. Mixed

    knail1, GitHub user

    [Bug]: This request would exceed the rate limit for your organization (...) of 20,000 input tokens per minuteGitHub issue

    Even a brand-new session with a simple command hits Anthropic's 20,000 input tokens per minute limit for their organization, so OpenHands stalls on rate-limit errors.

    Published Jun 20, 2025self-described: Anthropic API key in OpenHands

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (log)

    Date and version

    2025-06-20, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Anthropic API

42. Mixed

    matty-fortune, GitHub user

    [Bug]: The agent (Devstral) frequently forgets that it's an agent and starts acting like a typical LLMGitHub issue

    Running OpenHands on local Devstral, simple prompts such as building a React button component usually fail: the model creates no files and tells the user to create them.

    Published Jun 6, 2025self-described: Local Devstral, a new create-react-app repository

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-06-06, docker.all-hands.dev/all-hands-ai/runtime:0.41-nikolaik, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral, local

43. Mixed

    trycrmr, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    OpenHands could not reach their LM Studio server until trycrmr loosened Docker and LM Studio networking settings on their private network.

    Published Jun 2, 2025self-described: OpenHands and LM Studio on a private network

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-06-02, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    LM Studio

44. Mixed

    Amazing_Athlete_2265, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit comment

    Devstral through OpenRouter works well in OpenHands when it works but sometimes loops; on their limited hardware Amazing_Athlete_2265 prefers Aider, which lets Amazing_Athlete_2265 control context size.

    Published May 25, 2025self-described: Limited local hardware; Devstral through OpenRouter

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-25, Devstral, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Interactive tools

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral via OpenRouter

45. Negative

    _underlines_, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit comment

    Getting OpenHands to run with LM Studio on Windows 11 and WSL2 took a whole Saturday of Docker and network workarounds. The result was underwhelming next to GitHub Copilot agent mode or Aider.

    Published May 25, 2025self-described: Windows 11 with WSL2 and LM Studio

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-25, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Interactive tools

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    LM Studio, Windows 11, WSL2

46. Mixed

    iSevenDays, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit comment

    On Devstral with a 131k context, OpenHands went into loops; switching to manual confirmation mode made it much better, and iSevenDays calls it a great project with a few bugs to fix.

    Published May 25, 2025self-described: Devstral with a 131k context

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-25, devstral, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models
    • How much work should OpenHands take on before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral, 131k context

47. Negative

    foobarg, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit post

    Running OpenHands offline with Devstral on a 24GB GPU, foobarg found the configuration broken and undocumented, objected to mounting the container socket, and saw Devstral fail almost every basic task.

    Published May 24, 2025self-described: Fully offline setup: Devstral Q4_K_M on Ollama, OpenHands in podman

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (issue)

    Date and version

    2025-05-24, Devstral (Q4\_K\_M on [Ollama](https://ollama.com/library/devstral:24b)), needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Devstral Q4_K_M on Ollama, 24GB GPU

48. Mixed

    bassgojoe, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit comment

    bassgojoe got decent results from OpenHands on qwen2.5-coder-32b, while Devstral was horrible in every agent bassgojoe tried.

    Published May 24, 2025self-described: Local models in several agents

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-24, qwen2.5-coder-32b, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    qwen2.5-coder-32b, Devstral

49. Positive

    EternalSilverback, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: OpenHands + Devstral is utter crap as of May 2025 (24G VRAM)Reddit comment

    On their first run, OpenHands with Claude Sonnet 3.7 built a small WebGPU app with unit tests and served it for review for about US$0.44. Their attempt with a local model failed to start.

    Published May 24, 2025self-described: First run, Claude Sonnet 3.7

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-24, Claude Sonnet 3.7, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Usage and cost: Discussed without concern
    • Setup & runtime friction: Discussed without concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Claude Sonnet 3.7

50. Positive

    Repulsive-Memory-298, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    Has used OpenHands a ton since November, when it led SWE-bench, and says "afaik no other os comes close", though its lead didn't last. Finds it pretty bloated for local use next to newer tooling, depending on the use case, and very easy to customize with agents and microagents.

    Published May 23, 2025self-described: Heavy use since November 2024

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-23, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • The open alternative to closed agents
    • Written repository context improves results

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

51. Positive

    zackify, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: DevstralHacker News comment

    Ran Mistral's Devstral locally in LM Studio with OpenHands and Cline and says it worked great in both, with about one minute of initial prompt processing on an M4 Max.

    Published May 22, 2025self-described: Runs Devstral on an M4 Max using LM Studio

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-22, devstral, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Stability: Positive
    • Setup & runtime friction: Discussed without concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral via LM Studio on an M4 Max

52. Positive

    Mr_Moonsilver, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit post

    Trying OpenHands with Devstral, Mr_Moonsilver was impressed by how capable the agent is and finds it as capable as the other top open-source coding agents.

    Published May 22, 2025self-described: Tried OpenHands with Mistral's Devstral

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-22, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Devstral

53. Negative

    FullstackSensei, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    FullstackSensei wanted to test Devstral in OpenHands but found it hard to run outside Docker or to set up with their own API. They gave up after about an hour and used Roo instead.

    Published May 22, 2025self-described: Testing Devstral locally

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-22, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Interactive tools

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

54. Mixed

    cuckfoders, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    Getting OpenHands running on Windows with WSL took two pages of documentation and a long Docker command, and an attached existing project still showed a not-a-git-repository warning.

    Published May 22, 2025self-described: Windows with WSL, OpenHands 0.39 in Docker

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-22, 0.39, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.39, Docker on WSL

55. Positive

    das_rdsm, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Comment on: Why has no one been talking about Open Hands so far?Reddit comment

    das_rdsm runs OpenHands headless and fully autonomous for several users, calls it a full software-engineering agent that Roo and Cline do not match, and also uses it for non-coding tasks.

    Published May 22, 2025self-described: Headless OpenHands deployed for several users

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-22, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • Async delegation: Positive
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Hands-off agent

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Headless mode

56. Negative

    sagarpatil, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: The unreasonable effectiveness of an LLM agent loop with tool useHacker News comment

    Tried OpenHands and found its UI/UX horrible, questioning why it needs a separate UI when it could work inside an IDE, a VS Code extension or a CLI.

    Published May 16, 2025self-described: Entrepreneur

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-16, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Interactive tools

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

57. Mixed

    Repulsive-Memory-298, Reddit user in r/ChatGPTCoding

    Does anyone use Openhands agent?Reddit post

    OpenHands had been solid for Repulsive-Memory-298 since November, but version 0.34 burned about US$20 of Anthropic tokens in five minutes on a small project.

    Published Apr 28, 2025self-described: Use since November 2024 on Anthropic models

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-04-28, v.34, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.34, Anthropic API

58. Mixed

    Tim-Pohlmann, GitHub user

    [Bug]: Line numbers are often included in str_replace commandsGitHub issue

    Running the resolver in GitHub Actions, file edits often fail because the agent copies line numbers from cat -n into its replacements; an instructions file did little to stop it.

    Published Apr 16, 2025self-described: OpenHands GitHub resolver in GitHub Actions

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-04-16, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Async delegation: Mixed or negative
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    GitHub resolver

59. No opinion stated

    ByteDance Seed research team, authors of Multi-SWE-bench

    Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue ResolvingIndependent benchmark paper, arXiv

    ByteDance adapted OpenHands to Java, TypeScript, JavaScript, Go, Rust, C, and C++ and ran it against Agentless and SWE-agent on 1,632 issues. OpenHands had the highest resolve rate in five of the seven languages, and its model-driven workflow took more turns and cost more than fixed-workflow Agentless.

    "Overall, MopenHands outperforms the others in most cases, achieving the highest resolved rate in five out of seven languages, while MSWE-agent wins twice and MagentLess wins once."

    Published Apr 3, 2025self-described: Research team at ByteDance running an adapted OpenHands (MopenHands) on 1,632 issues in seven languages with nine models

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (benchmark output)

    Date and version

    2025-04-03, OpenHands +CodeAct v2.1, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Usage and cost: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands with CodeAct v2.1, adapted as MopenHands; GPT-4o, o1, o3-mini, Claude 3.5 and 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao models

60. Negative

    m_kos, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: What's your vibe coding setup, what does it cost and how do you like it?Hacker News comment

    Built a personal RAG system over three weekends with OpenHands and Trae in Docker for about US$60; rated satisfaction around 10% and spent more time debugging than building.

    Published Mar 31, 2025self-described: Solo weekend project

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-03-31, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Once review and rework are counted, does OpenHands reduce total engineering time?: Absorbed by rework

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands and Trae, both in Docker

61. Negative

    morifo, Reddit user in r/LocalLLaMA

    Does any local model come close to claude for use with OpenHands?Reddit post

    With a 3090, says they have used "more or less every model I can fit onto the GPU" with Ollama for refactors, tests and documentation, and none was as good as Claude. OpenHands too was below par for simple tasks with local models, and absolutely terrible with GPT 4o.

    Published Mar 5, 2025self-described: Ollama on an RTX 3090, plus Claude

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-03-05, GPT 4o, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • The model is the main lever
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Open-weight models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Local models on Ollama, GPT-4o, Claude

62. Mixed

    Venku Buragadda, Medium

    OpenHands: Write code without writing a single line of codePersonal blog post, Medium

    Built an ecommerce web UI with OpenHands 0.26 and Claude for around US$5-$6, getting rate limited by Anthropic every time a command was sent. Things were slow, downloading the code from the UI never completed, and the author warns to push often because nothing stops OpenHands deleting files.

    Published Mar 4, 2025self-described: Solo; built an ecommerce web app in the OpenHands web UI

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-03-04, 0.26, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Usage and cost: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.26 in Docker, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet (20241022)

63. Mixed

    Daniel Manzke, Medium (works on an enterprise search product)

    Burning Tokens with AI Coding AgentsPersonal blog post, Medium

    Spent about US$200 in tokens building a prototype. Token use exploded late as files were regenerated and the codebase ballooned. Finds it great for prototyping and unready for complex products.

    Published Mar 1, 2025self-described: Weekend prototype of a Q&A app against their company's enterprise search APIs

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (repository)

    Date and version

    2025-03-01, claude 3 sonnet, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Dependence on the model: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Local OpenHands (Docker), Anthropic Claude Sonnet; briefly Gemini 2.0 Flash

64. Negative

    flutas, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Claude CodeHacker News comment

    Tested OpenHands a few times and found it fails fairly quickly, getting hung up while setting up Kotlin and Go projects and hitting Claude rate limits fast.

    Published Feb 24, 2025self-described: Kotlin and Go test projects

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-02-24, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands with Claude

65. Positive

    Srujan Reddy, srujanpakanati.com

    OpenHands🤲: The Flawless Open-Source AI Coding CompanionPersonal blog post, srujanpakanati.com (Hashnode)

    Finds OpenHands delightfully good with clear instructions and a free Gemini model, but self-hosting on Kubernetes took several attempts and needs a privileged pod with the Docker socket.

    Published Feb 24, 2025self-described: Solo; ran OpenHands locally, then self-hosted it on their own Kubernetes cluster

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-02-24, 0.24, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern
    • Dependence on the model: Discussed without concern
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern
    • The open alternative to closed agents

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands 0.24, gemini-2.0-flash-exp, Docker then Kubernetes

66. Mixed

    dr_kiszonka, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Some critical issues with the SWE-bench datasetHacker News comment

    Using the model under discussion with OpenHands to write a simple web crawler for a hobby RAG project, found it great but quite expensive at about US$8 an hour. In Trea it was pretty bad but free; the author asks, "Maybe it depends on how the agents use it?"

    Published Feb 22, 2025self-described: Solo hobby RAG project

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-02-22, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands with Claude (model named in the parent comment), early 2025

67. Positive

    sentdex, YouTube creator (Python and ML programming)

    Programming with LLM Agents in 2025Video, YouTube

    Uses OpenHands 0.23 with Claude 3.5 Sonnet (transcribed "CLA onic 3.5") and calls these tools massive amplifications of the author's output, worth paying for. Notes the download-all-files button lately does not work, so the author asks the agent to zip the workspace instead.

    "…annoyed at everything is like 20 bucks a month um but for the most part uh all these things are like massive amplifications of my my actual output so I do think it's worth it but just because I don't I don't really want to…"

    Published Feb 15, 2025self-described: Solo; hour-long session building projects with OpenHands

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-02-15, 0.23, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, continuity: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Model choice: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Discussed without concern
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models
    • Once review and rework are counted, does OpenHands reduce total engineering time?: Net time saved

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands around 0.22 to 0.23, Claude 3.5 Sonnet via Anthropic API

68. Mixed

    fragmede, Hacker News commenter, self-described

    Comment on: Firing programmers for AI is a mistakeHacker News comment

    Recommends trying OpenHands to see where agents are heading; says it is not production-ready yet but goes off and does work on its own from a prompt.

    Published Feb 11, 2025

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-02-11, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Unpredictable task success: Discussed without concern
    • Should OpenHands work as a hands-off agent, or do engineers get more from an interactive tool for the same work?: Hands-off agent

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

69. Negative

    im3000, Reddit user in r/ChatGPTCoding

    Your thoughts on OpenHands (formerly OpenDevin)?Reddit post

    im3000 tried OpenHands on a recommendation and found the Docker install clunky and the tool unpolished, and asks whether anyone uses it daily.

    Published Jan 28, 2025self-described: Tried on a Reddit recommendation

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-28, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Setup & runtime friction: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

70. Positive

    Jim's Garage, YouTube creator (homelab channel)

    Build Apps With Prompts! - OpenHandsVideo, YouTube

    Sets up self-hosted OpenHands with an Anthropic model and a GitHub repo. From single prompts it builds a website for the channel, which picked up the wrong Jim's Garage when customized, and a working Hello World app; says one simple prompt built a working website within a few seconds.

    "…change the greeting to different languages as we' seen in the background it also keeps a click counter which is possibly cool but anyway you can see how from one simple prompt I was able to build a working website within a few seconds so…"

    Published Jan 27, 2025self-described: Solo; self-hosted OpenHands with GitHub integration

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-27, latest version. 21, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Operational control, data control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Self-hosted OpenHands, Claude 3.5 Sonnet

71. Mixed

    rchowe, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: When AI promises speed but delivers debugging hellHacker News comment

    Spent a few days with OpenHands on gpt-4o: decent at writing new code and transparent in the terminal, but struggled to change repetitive TypeScript/React code.

    Published Jan 26, 2025self-described: Solo, TypeScript/React project created with Vite

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-26, gpt-4o, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks
    • Should teams run OpenHands on frontier hosted models, or on open-weight models they serve themselves?: Frontier hosted models

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    OpenHands with gpt-4o

72. Positive

    Geek Avenue, YouTube creator (freelance LLM developer)

    OpenHands(Open Devin) Excellent alterative for Devin!Video, YouTube

    Shows OpenHands with GPT-4o generating an entire Vue.js to-do project from one prompt and calls it an excellent free alternative to Devin.

    Published Jan 24, 2025self-described: Solo; ran OpenHands locally with Docker and GPT-4o

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-24, GPT4o, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • The open alternative to closed agents

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Local Docker, GPT-4o

73. Negative

    yeldarb, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Show HN: NYCerebro, semantic search of NYC traffic cams (written by v0)Hacker News comment

    yeldarb tried OpenHands in their own codebase a couple of months earlier and found it frustrating, expensive, and no faster than doing the task themselves.

    Published Jan 23, 2025self-described: Own codebase, day-to-day work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-23, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer experience: Mixed or negative
    • Usage and cost: Raised as a concern
    • Once review and rework are counted, does OpenHands reduce total engineering time?: Absorbed by rework

    Published on

    Developer communities & issue trackers

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

74. Positive

    Cobus Greyling, YouTube creator

    OpenHands is an open-source assistant designed to assist developers in software development tasks.Video, YouTube

    Runs OpenHands locally, has it write and run a Hacker News bash script that it debugs on its own; likes local open-source use but flags the freedom it gets on the machine.

    "Pro uh M2 Chip I think um you can see runs locally Port 3000 and um it's got integration to vs code over here um and I just asked the the coder um the the AI agent to please write a bash script which displays…"

    Published Jan 22, 2025self-described: Solo; ran OpenHands locally in Docker on a MacBook Pro M2

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to OpenHands found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-22, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Open source & self-hosting: Positive
    • Developer experience: Positive
    • Security & access: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Talks & videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

75. Positive

    Brian Hackett, CEO at Replay

    Building a Better BoltCompany blog post, Replay Blog

    Replay replaced the AI developer in its modified Bolt with OpenHands, which it had integrated with Replay recordings, and said OpenHands works efficiently on larger code bases.

    "…swaps out its AI developer for OpenHands, which we’ve integrated with Replay and is powerful, flexible, and efficient at working on larger code bases."

    Published Jan 6, 2025Replay, a time-travel debugging company, building an app builder on a modified Bolt

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; OpenHands partner: not counted as independent; Ran the rollout; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    program member (suspected); partner (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-06, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Not counted

    Its author's company builds OpenHands into its own builder product. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    OpenHands integrated with Replay recordings as the AI developer in a modified Bolt

76. Mixed

    Lior Strugach, Medium

    OpenHands - Your Own AI employee or yet another GPT wrapper?Personal blog post, Medium

    In a company trial OpenHands failed to build an API layer after thirty minutes, but wrote internal READMEs and test coverage well; best for routine, well-defined tasks.

    Published Jan 5, 2025self-described: Evaluated against typical development scenarios in their (unnamed) company environment

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-01-05, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • End-to-end execution: Positive
    • Unpredictable task success: Raised as a concern
    • Usage and cost: Discussed without concern
    • Strongest on scoped, verifiable tasks
    • The open alternative to closed agents
    • How much work should OpenHands take on before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

    Published on

    Engineering blogs & reviews

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable