Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Took me a minute to see the value - my first thought was "this is just cursor's cloud agents..."
But the key thing here for me is "Every sandbox boots your app on a live URL." Cursor doesn't easily have that, and that's what would allow me to ditch my local env entirely - the ability to actually try out a PR without needing to check it out locally.
So on that note: how does that work? We've had trouble with getting our dev env running in other cloud envs because it requires a few things (clickhouse, localstack, pg, etc) running which we manage via docker compose locally.
Also, some minor pricing feedback: it'd be really great if there were a version with pay-as-you-go and a cheaper fixed cost. I think your 99/seat/mo model is fine for professional work, but it's a lot to commit to for personal work.
by fishtoaster - Looks neat! I've been using Amp (https://ampcode.com/) for a while (Which seems to be doing something very similar), and I really appreciate this type of workflow. One thread = one VM feels like a solid model going forward.by r5Khe
- The pricing seems draconian... why would anybody choose to pay this way when you can pretty much do the same with exe.dev?
- The "reviewing product output instead of code" framing is the right direction for where development is heading, and the per thread VM model makes sense for isolation.
One dimension worth thinking through as you scale: the security surface of cloud-hosted agents is meaningfully different from local agents. Local agents (Cursor, Claude Code) have access to your local filesystem and credentials. Cloud agents have access to your cloud credentials, your production-adjacent infrastructure, and potentially your CI/CD pipeline and they run without the developer watching.
The MCP server porting during onboarding is the piece I'd think hardest about. MCP servers can have write access to config files, and the STDIO transport has a documented unsanitized parameter passthrough vulnerability (AVE-2026-00060, corroborated by OX Security and Microsoft) that affects Python, TS, Java, and Rust SDKs. When you're running hundreds of agents concurrently in the cloud, a single compromised MCP server has a much larger blast radius than a local one.
The "what the agent writes" security layer is separate from the "how the agent runs" security layer. Hoplite solves the second. Scanning what the agent wrote (SAST, secrets detection, dependency audit) before it gets merged is the complementary first layer. SafeWeave runs as an MCP server inside the agent's environment for exactly this works locally and in cloud agent setups.
Congrats on the launch. What's your current approach to credential scoping for agents that need cloud access?
by chandankarn - Nobody talks about this but the security model is the thing that should disqualify most of these tools immediately.
I spent a weekend auditing the network calls that three popular open-source coding agents make. Two of them send your file contents to external endpoints by default with zero sandboxing. No confirmation prompt, no allowlist, nothing. If you're running these on anything with proprietary code you're essentially uploading your source to a third party and hoping their privacy policy holds.
OpenCode is the worst offender here — the default config pulls from a remote provider URL and there's no way to even see what's being sent without packet inspection. You can lock it down but it requires manually editing YAML configs that aren't documented anywhere obvious. Aider at least respects .gitignore and keeps everything local unless you explicitly configure a remote endpoint.
The frustrating part is the actual coding capabilities are decent on several of these. Multi-file edits, git integration, context-aware suggestions — all solid. But none of that matters if the tool is silently exfiltrating your code. Audit the network layer before you evaluate anything else.
- >> It opens a pull request >> Then keeps iterating as review comments land, in the same thread, with the same context.
My experience, particularly with Sol is that agents are generally really bad at knowing when to stop 'iterating' and will continue covering off ever-more obscure edge cases. How does Hoplite solve for this?
by kristianc - At the risk of replicating the classic Dropbox post (why would you need this when you could just use rsync?)…
I have a dev box with 96 GB of RAM, 2x4 TB NVMe drives, and an unbelievably beefy AMD CPU. This box costs me less than $150 per month and is so hyperlocal that I can log into it and use it as a remote desktop, while also using it as an always-on server that I can use to run T3 code and tmux and so forth. I can then connect to it from my laptop or my phone using Tailscale and prompt using the T3 Code or Remux mobile apps. Voilà — I have my own outsourced development center.
In this setup, my agent can handle everything: previews with a NixOS environment, unlimited threading, “autofixing” (which is just a loop between my agent and Copilot review comments), etc.
But it requires a LOT of custom setup/tooling so that my local environment works with my agent.
Why am I telling you this? Well, I've tried a number of serverless or ephemeral VM-type solutions, and it turns out that once you're working on "real code," you can't use ephemeral micro VMs reliably because your code starts interacting with too many different dependent services. You have to run migrations, so that your tests run properly, and to do that, you need to pull five different Docker images, and it goes on indefinitely. Eventually, the overhead of making little micro VMs is so high that it makes much more sense to take a monolithic approach to development and have a persistent workstation. You can still use things like worktrees, which allow you to massively parallelize your work, but you're building off of a shared local drive and cache.
So I believe there's a place for something like Hoplite with simpler software, but the problem is that the minute you get beyond toy software, it becomes really hard to test, scale, and deploy everything in micro VMs. There are also other companies that have tried this approach (like https://shipyard.build, although I think they had a slightly different philosophy from what you're doing) and I don't know that they've been massively successful.
What is it that you're doing differently that will allow Hoplite to succeed? How do you think that you'll compete against the legacy players in this space and the more full-spectrum players like Devin, et al.?
by sebmellen - Trying to wrap my head around how it differs from my current on-the-go setup that is claude code. On claude's phone app or web app I can choose a repo, ask it for a feature and it writes the code, runs my tests + add more tests and creates a new branch. Then I can click on create PR or configure claude code to auto create PR.
I also have another setup which is a self-hosted docker compose behind my vpn with one container with claude code agents managed using agent of empires[0] and another container with playwright with sse. Using this setup, my agents get access to actual browser where it can test things live and I can access the app started by agent on domain:port. This is something I don't get with Claude. [0] https://github.com/agent-of-empires/agent-of-empires
by scottydelta