Autop compared with the usual ways to ship with AI
Three ways people ship with AI today: manual coding-agent sessions, hosted coding agents and chat-to-app builders. Autop is a fourth: it runs the coding agent you already use, on your machine, from the issues on your board, across many repositories, with your checks and your merge rules.
How do the four approaches differ?
| Manual agent sessions | Hosted coding agents | Chat-to-app builders | Autop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who drives | You, prompt by prompt | The service, from an issue | The service, from a chat | Autop, from your issues |
| Where it runs | Your machine | Their cloud | Their cloud | Your machine |
| Whose subscription | Yours | Typically theirs, per task | Theirs | Yours |
| Repositories | One at a time | Usually one per task | One app | Many, on one board |
| Checks and review | You run them | Varies | Usually none | Your checks, plus automated review |
| Who merges | You | You | They deploy for you | Your rules, hands-on to autonomous |
| Built for | Developers at the keyboard | Teams on a platform | People who want an app without touching the stack | Developers who know what they want built |
When is Autop the wrong choice?
When you want an app without touching the stack, a chat-to-app builder fits better. When you have no machine that can stay on and no GitHub organisation, Autop cannot run yet; Autop-hosted machines are planned.
What does Autop work with?
Works with GitHub, Claude Code and Codex. No new way of working, just less work to manage.
App builders are for people who want an app without touching the stack. Autop is for developers who know what they want built and how it should be checked.
Join the waitlist