Comparing the Claw-like agent ecosystem

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 22:44:00 -0500

Chrys Bader has created ClawCharts to track the popularity and growth of OpenClaw and its growing number of competitors.

I have an unused Raspberry Pi 4 4GB that I’ve been meaning to test one of these Claw-like personal agents on (locked down to prevent the security nightmare scenarios we’ve seen play out since OpenClaw took off).

OpenClaw is a bit of a resource hog (which is why so many people are running out to buy Mac Minis), so I’ve been looking at the list of lightweight competitors. There is no obvious reason to prefer one over the other, so I’ll probably go with the fast-growing ZeroClaw.

ZeroClaw offers OAuth connectors for OpenAI and Anthropic subscription plans, but presently neither company is clear on whether this usage is permissible or not. Anthropic recently blew up the OpenClaw community by updating their docs to specifically ban using OAuth outside of Claude Code. An Anthropic employee partially walked this back on Twitter, but there is still no clear statement whether this use case is permitted. Regarding the use of OAuth from OpenAI for OpenClaw (specifically, GPT Codex), Peter Steinberger, creator of OpenClaw, stated on Twitter: “that already works, OAI publicly said that”. No one can seem to find this public statement, but it’s worth noting that Steinberger himself is now an OpenAI employee. So, will you get banned for using your ChatGPT Plus/Pro or Claude Pro/Max subscriptions with OpenClaw? Nobody knows.

Anthropic's statistical analysis skill doesn't get statistical significance quite right

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 19:30:00 -0500

Anthropic’s new statistical analysis skill demonstrates a common misunderstanding of statistical significance:

Statistical significance means the difference is unlikely due to chance.

But this phrasing isn’t quite right. The p-value in Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is not about the probability the results are “due to chance”; it is the probability—under the null hypothesis and the model assumptions—of observing results at least as extreme as the ones we obtained. In other words, the p-value summarizes how compatible the data are with the null, given our modelling choices. What it does not tell you is the probability that the null hypothesis is true.

Statistician Andrew Gelman gave a good definition for statistical significance in a 2015 blog post:

A mathematical technique to measure the strength of evidence from a single study. Statistical significance is conventionally declared when the p-value is less than 0.05. The p-value is the probability of seeing a result as strong as observed or greater, under the null hypothesis (which is commonly the hypothesis that there is no effect). Thus, the smaller the p-value, the less consistent are the data with the null hypothesis under this measure.

As some of the commenters in this blog post observe, simply being able to parrot a technically accurate definition of a p-value does not necessarily make us better at applying statistical significance in practice. It is certainly true that statistical significance is widely misused in scientific publishing as a threshold to distinguish signal from noise (or to be fancy, a “lexicographic decision rule”), which is why some scientists have argued that we should abandon it as the default statistical paradigm for research.

Anthropic on Big Muddy

Comparing the Claw-like agent ecosystem

Anthropic's statistical analysis skill doesn't get statistical significance quite right