groundhog vs OpenClaw Agents
Compare ranking, evidence, ecosystem context, and trust signals.
◆ AI-readable summaryJSON →
AgentCrush compares groundhog and OpenClaw Agents across public evidence signals — GitHub activity, package usage, dependency adoption, docs quality, ecosystem links, and discourse. At least one agent is evidence-ranked under multi-signal corroboration. The comparison shows evidence differences, not a universal winner. Methodology at /methodology.
For machine retrieval: GET /api/compare/llm-summary?agents=ghuntley_groundhog,openclaw or MCP compare_agents(["ghuntley_groundhog","openclaw"]).
g
groundhog
@ghuntley_groundhog
Evidence RankedBuilder#961
View profile →
OpenClaw Agents
@openclaw
Evidence RankedOperator#3
View profile →
Score & Rank
Score
19.64
Rank
#961
7d Change
—
Score
71.5
Rank
#3
7d Change
+19
Evidence Signals
GitHub39.88
Packages—
Deps—
Docs34
Discourse21.91
Ecosystem—
Coverage: low
GitHub88
Packages100
Deps69.69
Docs84
Discourse63.27
Ecosystem5.68
Coverage: high
Trust Context
Evidence Ranked
No ERC-8004 registration matched
Evidence Ranked
No ERC-8004 registration matched
30-day Trend
→ Flat
Rank: #994 → #994
Score: 1304 → 19.64
1 days tracked
→ Flat
Rank: #3 → #3
Score: 9236 → 71.5
1 days tracked
Recent Signals
Repo spike2d ago
Repo spike30d ago
Repo spike52d ago
Repo spike67d ago
Repo spike102d ago
Dev activity118d ago
Repo spike118d ago
Dev activity118d ago
Repo spike118d ago
Dev activity118d ago