HN Explorer

Launch HN: Terminal Use (YC W26) – Vercel for filesystem-based agents

115 points by filipbalucha ↗ HN
Hello Hacker News! We're Filip, Stavros, and Vivek from Terminal Use (https://www.terminaluse.com/). We built Terminal Use to make it easier to deploy agents that work in a sandboxed environment and need filesystems to do work. This includes coding agents, research agents, document processing agents, and internal tools that read and write files.

Here's a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMl96l9xPA.

Our biggest pain point with hosting agents was that you'd need to stitch together multiple pieces: packaging your agent, running it in a sandbox, streaming messages back to users, persisting state across turns, and managing getting files to and from the agent workspace.

We wanted something like Cog from Replicate, but for agents: a simple way to package agent code from a repo and serve it behind a clean API/SDK. We wanted to provide a protocol to communicate with your agent, but not constraint the agent logic or harness itself.

On Terminal Use, you package your agent from a repo with a config.yaml and Dockerfile, then deploy it with our CLI. You define the logic of three endpoints (on_create, on_event, and on_cancel) which track the lifecycle of a task (conversation). The config.yaml contains details about resources, build context, etc.

Out of the box, we support Claude Agent SDK and Codex SDK agents. By support, we mean that we have an adapter that converts from the SDK message types to ours. If you'd like to use your own custom harness, you can convert and send messages with our types (Vercel AI SDK v6 compatible). For the frontend, we have a Vercel AI SDK provider that lets you use your agent with Vercel's AI SDK, and have a messages module so that you don't have to manage streaming and persistence yourself.

The part we think is most different is storage.

We treat filesystems as first-class primitives, separate from the lifecycle of a task. That means you can persist a workspace across turns, share it between different agents, or upload / download files independent of the sandbox being active. Further, our filesystem SDK provides presigned urls which makes it easy for your users to directly upload and download files which means that you don't need to proxy file transfer through your backend.

Since your agent logic and filesystem storage are decoupled, this makes it easy to iterate on your agents without worrying about the files in the sandbox: if you ship a bug, you can deploy and auto-migrate all your tasks to the new deployment. If you make a breaking change, you can specify that existing tasks stay on the existing version, and only new tasks use the new version.

We're also adding support for multi-filesystem mounts with configurable mount paths and read/write modes, so storage stays durable and reusable while mount layout stays task-specific.

On the deployment side, we've been influenced by modern developer platforms: simple CLI deployments, preview/production environments, git-based environment targeting, logs, and rollback. All the configuration you need to build, deploy & manage resources for your agent is stored in the config.yaml file which makes it easy to build & deploy your agent in CI/CD pipelines.

Finally, we've explicitly designed our platform for your CLI coding agents to help you build, test, & iterate with your agents. With our CLI, your coding agents can send messages to your deployed agents, and download filesystem contents to help you understand your agent's output. A common way we test our agents is that we make markdown files with user scenarios we'd like to test, and then ask Claude Code to impersonate our users and chat with our deployed agent.

What we do not have yet: full parity with general-purpose sandbox providers. For example, preview URLs and lower-level sandbox.exec(...) style APIs are still ...

35 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 65.0 ms ] thread
verdverm
Can you explain why everyone thinks we should use new tools to deploy agents instead of our existing infra?

eg. I already run Kubernetes

dangoodmanUT
There are a lot of reasons for this, but typically “same same reason you would use k8s for customer serverless functions”: can’t scale fast enough, too slow to place workloads, not isolated by default, configuration explosion, limited multitenancy support, and so much more
thesiti92
have you guys found any of the existing nfs tools helpful (archil, daytona volumes, ...) or did you have to roll your own? i guess i have the same question for checkpointing/retrying too. it feels like the market of tools is very up in the air right now.
CharlesW
> We built Terminal Use to make it easier to deploy agents that work in a sandboxed environment and need filesystems to do work.

When I read this, I think of Fly.io's sprites.dev. Is that reasonable, or do you consider this product to be in a different space? If the latter, can you ELI5?

adi4213
This is really interesting, congrats on the launch. The use case I’m trying to solve for is building a coding agent platform that reliably sets up our development stack well. Few questions! In my case, I’m trying to build a one-shot coding agent platform that nicely spins up a docker-in-docker Supabase environment, runs a NextJS app, and durably listens to CI and iterates.

1) Can I use this with my ChatGPT pro or Claude max subscription? 2)

oliver236
is this a replacement to langgraph?
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
nr378
Based on the docs and API surface, I think the filesystem abstraction is probably copy-on-mount backed by object storage.

I suspect it works as follows: when a task starts, filesystem contents sync down from S3/R2/GCS to a local directory, which gets bind-mounted into the container. The agent reads and writes normally - no FUSE, no network round-trips per file op. On task completion or explicit sync, changes flush back to object storage. The presigned URL support for upload/download is the giveaway that object storage is the source of truth.

This makes way more sense than FUSE for agent workloads. Agents do thousands of small reads (find, grep, git status) that would each be a network call with FUSE. With copy-on-mount it's all local disk speed after initial sync.

Cross-task sharing falls out naturally - two tasks mounting the same filesystem ID just means two containers syncing from the same S3 prefix. Probably last-write-wins rather than distributed locking, which is fine since agents rarely have concurrent writes to the same file.

nicklo
Congrats on launch! As the agent cli’s and sdk’s were built for local use, there’s a ton of this infra work to run these agents in production. Genuinely excited for this space to mature.

I have been building an OSS self-hostable agent infra suite at https://ash-cloud.ai

Happy to trade notes sometime!

hamasho
Hmm.. so this is not the same category with computer use or browser use. I love the idea. Well defined and controlled sandbox is really useful. Off topic but I’m disappointed by computer use and browser use when I tried three months ago. They couldn’t complete many basic tasks. Especially browser use, it easily failed slightly unorthodox website. It can’t find select box implemented by div, stacks in infinite loop when the submit button is disabled, and it even failed to complete the demo in its own readme! I’m okay with open source projects a bit buggy, but a VC funded company, which already has the fancy landing page, provides the service to big corps, and offers paid plans, should at least make sure the demo works.
p0seidon
When building, did you not have the thought or feeling that you would prefer the actual Claude Code and Codex harness to run, rather than just the SDKs also for your Agents?
rubyrfranklin2
We've been running filesystem-based agents internally at heyvid for about six months now, and the deployment story has honestly been the messiest part. You end up hand-rolling so much scaffolding that's not your core product. The 'Vercel for agents' framing clicks immediately — I remember when Vercel did the same thing for frontend and it just removed a whole category of yak-shaving. Curious how Terminal Use handles state persistence across runs; that's been our biggest headache when agents need to resume mid-task.
rjpruitt16
Im curious if you guys are seeing rate limiting issues. Agents sharing api keys tend to be retry storm monsters. I wonder how agent companies will address
CrispAI
The version pinning approach for existing tasks is a pattern I've found really useful in practice. When you're building document processing workflows (transcripts, reports, etc.) the ability to iterate on your agent logic without retroactively breaking existing user sessions is underrated.

One question: for the "existing tasks stay on old version" case, do you support any kind of manual migration trigger? E.g. if I fix a genuine bug in how I'm parsing a document, I might want to re-run the agent on specific old workspaces with the new version, rather than waiting for users to start new tasks.

MrQianjinsi
Really interesting platform — the decoupled filesystem model makes a lot of sense for long-running agents.

One area I'd love to understand better: inter-agent communication and auditability. When multiple agents share the same filesystem (e.g., a coordinator agent and several sub-agents), how is message passing or state handoff handled? Is it purely file-based (agents read/write to agreed-upon paths), or is there a more structured IPC mechanism?

More importantly, from an audit perspective: is there a way to replay or inspect the full sequence of reads/writes and agent messages across a multi-agent task? For production use cases (document processing, internal tooling), being able to trace why an agent made a decision — and which files it read at that moment — feels like a hard requirement. Curious whether this is on the roadmap or expected to be handled at the application layer.

Eridrus
There clearly needs to be something in this space, but I can't imagine the world standardizing on a closed source system for this infra.

I know OSS business models are rough, but someone is going to solve this in open source and I think that is what will achieve traction.

chenxi9649
I'm currently using them to build an AI agent similar to lovable/replit-esq in tech stack and it works.

I started by managing the claude agent sdk myself in a daytona container, and it was a lot more challenging than I thought. The agent kept crashing in streaming mode and there was no thread crash, so it was hard to debug, esp in a cloud container like Daytona. I also realized that I needed to implement my own session management system + my own database if I wanna save the chat and on top of that streaming so the messages come out in real time. AND I need to manage my own container janitor/heart beat system so that un-used containers don't just sit there, but I also don't want them to go cold immediately after each message since cold start takes a bit.. They all seem simple but at each step there are some edge cases. I ended up vibe coding most all of that, but it was just quite fragile. For those who hasn't tried the agent sdks, it feels like it's clearly designed to be ran on a client computers with permanent storage + lots of ram than microVMs. Which was not what I expected.

After that, I tried to find some managed option. Starting with blackbox ai because I saw a vercel tweet about them, and for some reason I just couldn't get their agent API stuff to work AT ALL?... I'm curious as to if it's actually working for anyone. Then I tried sandbox dev, which doesn't store container/sessions/storage stuff out of the box for you, so it wasn't much better than doing the daytona container myself. And then I tried terminaluse, and it worked better than I expected given all of the other stuff that I tried.

So at the end of the day, it's kind of like a managed cloud services that does agent chat history, session recovery, streaming + a CLI that makes it easy for my own codex to debug/deploy + file system sync. From what I can tell, there isn't anyone else that can do all that and I'm pretty pleased with using them.