comparison - kongusen/loom-agent GitHub Wiki

Loom vs. Other Frameworks

Feature Comparison

Feature LangChain AutoGen CrewAI Loom
Context pressure management
Five-partition context
Background heartbeat (H_b)
Structured R→A→O→Δ loop partial
Context renewal (disk paging)
Veto authority
Self-improvement (E1–E4)
Progressive skill loading partial
MCP integration partial
Multi-provider (Anthropic/OpenAI/Gemini)
Built-in retry + circuit breaker partial

Design Philosophy

LangChain — chains and pipelines. Great for linear workflows, but the model is a step in your pipeline, not an autonomous agent.

AutoGen — conversation-based multi-agent. Agents talk to each other, but context management and safety are left to you.

CrewAI — role-based crews. Easy to get started, but limited control over what the model sees and when.

Loom — agent API first. Application developers assemble one AgentConfig, run one Agent, and get structured sessions, runtime inputs, safety, heartbeat, and context control underneath that single public surface.

Public API Positioning

Compared with other frameworks, Loom tries to keep the public contract narrower:

  • one main assembly object: AgentConfig
  • one main execution object: Agent
  • one stateful continuity object: Session
  • one run-scoped input object: RunContext

Everything else remains available, but advanced objects are intentionally pushed into loom.config and loom.runtime instead of competing with the top-level application path.

⚠️ **GitHub.com Fallback** ⚠️