Short answer
Nimbalyst, formerly Crystal, and Orchestrator.inc (formerly Agent Orchestrator) are both free, permissively licensed desktop apps for macOS, Windows and Linux. The deciding difference is the centre of gravity. Nimbalyst is built around documents: specs, wiki pages, mockups and trackers that agents read and write. Orchestrator is built around pull requests: many agents on many branches, each followed through CI, review and merge. Choose Nimbalyst if your work starts from specs and wiki pages. Choose Orchestrator if your work ends in a stack of PRs that need CI and review feedback.
At a glance
| Orchestrator.inc | Nimbalyst | |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | Supervising many agents through CI, review and merge | A document-centric workspace where agents write specs, wiki pages and code |
| Platforms | macOS, Windows, Linux, plus iOS and Android companion | macOS, Windows, Linux, plus iOS companion |
| License | Apache-2.0 throughout | MIT desktop app; team features under AGPL |
| Coding agents | 38 harnesses, including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, Gemini CLI and Aider | Claude Code and Codex stable; OpenCode and Copilot in alpha; a Gemini provider |
| Isolation | Git worktree and branch per session; multi-repo workspaces | Git worktrees, optionally one per session |
| Overview | Kanban board placed by session, PR, CI and review state | Session kanban plus tracker boards and list views |
| PR and CI | Failing checks, review comments and merge conflicts sent to the owning agent | In-app review and approval of GitHub PRs; CI tracking not documented |
| Documents | None built in | WYSIWYG markdown with AI diffs, mockups, whiteboards, trackers and a shared wiki |
| Browser preview | Agent-controllable browser per worker | Built-in preview |
| Planner agent | Project orchestrator that briefs and spawns workers | None |
The problem in practice
You have a spec for a feature and a week to ship it. Some of the work is thinking: refining the spec, sketching a screen, deciding the data model. Some of it is throughput: five agents on five branches, each opening a PR that has to pass CI and review. Nimbalyst is shaped around the first half. Orchestrator is shaped around the second. Which half takes most of your time is the real question. If most of your week goes into documents, a PR supervisor will feel thin. If most of it goes into chasing red checks and review comments across branches, a document workspace leaves that relay to you.
How each tool handles it
Task: implement a feature from a short spec and get it merged.
In Nimbalyst
- Write the spec as a wiki document and ask the agent to refine it, accepting or rejecting its AI diffs.
- Start a Claude Code or Codex session in a worktree with the document as context, and move its card across the session kanban.
- Push the branch and open the PR on GitHub.
- Review the PR in Nimbalyst, optionally with an AI review, and approve.
- Watch CI on GitHub, hand any failures back to the agent, then merge.
In Orchestrator.inc
- Keep the spec in your repo or a GitHub or GitLab issue. Spawn a session from the issue or with
ao spawn; it gets its own worktree and branch. - The agent implements and opens a PR, which Orchestrator picks up.
- A check fails. Its name and link go to the session, and the agent pushes a fix.
- Optionally a reviewer agent reviews the PR and its findings go to the worker.
- The card reaches Ready to merge, and you merge.
The spec writing is easier in Nimbalyst. The steps after the PR opens need fewer hand-offs in Orchestrator.
Where Nimbalyst is a good fit
- Your workflow starts from specs, wiki pages and mockups, and you want them next to the sessions.
- Your team wants a shared wiki that agents also write to.
- You use Claude Code and Codex and want a UI shaped around documents. Nimbalyst's iOS app also supports voice replies, which Orchestrator's mobile app does not.
Where Orchestrator fits better
- Workflows where review and CI feedback should reach the agent on its own. GitHub and GitLab are polled with ETags, and failing checks, requested changes and merge conflicts go to the session that owns the PR, de-duplicated. Merge stays an explicit action.
- Teams that mix agents. Each session picks from 38 harnesses, and 22 of them can act as reviewers on another agent's PR.
- Larger plans. A project orchestrator agent breaks a plan into tasks, spawns and briefs workers, and follows their progress.
- GitLab users and multi-repo work. Self-managed GitLab works, and one workspace can span several repositories.
- Android phones. Orchestrator's mobile app is on Google Play as well as the App Store, with push notifications when a session needs you or a PR is ready to merge.
- Your own servers. Install Orchestrator's host on a server or cloud VM, then start and supervise sessions there from your desktop, with several hosts in one app. Machines linked to the same Orchestrator account find each other; otherwise they pair over an HTTPS tunnel or the LAN.
Pricing
Running Orchestrator on your own machines is free and open source (Apache-2.0), with no account needed; you bring your own agent subscriptions or API keys. Optional Orchestrator Cloud plans, for agents that keep working while your laptop is closed, are Starter at $20/month and Pro at $40/month, with Enterprise pricing on request. Orchestrator does not proxy model calls. As of October 2026, Nimbalyst's individual tier is free, and it lists no prices for team collaboration features.
Who should pick which
Pick Nimbalyst if
- your work starts from specs, wiki pages and mockups
- Claude Code and Codex are the only agents you use
- you want a shared team wiki that agents contribute to
- you used Crystal and want its successor
Pick Orchestrator if
- you run agents other than Claude Code and Codex
- you want CI failures and review comments routed to the owning agent
- you want a planner agent and reviewer agents
- you use GitLab, multi-repo workspaces or an Android phone
- you want agents on your own servers or VMs, driven from your desktop
Try it
Spawn two agents on two open issues with the parallel issues guide and watch their PRs move to Ready to merge. You can keep writing specs wherever you like; Orchestrator reads issues and branches, not documents.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nimbalyst the same as Crystal?
Nimbalyst is the successor to Crystal. Crystal was deprecated in February 2026 and development moved to Nimbalyst, so former Crystal users are pointed there.
Does Nimbalyst work on Windows and Linux?
Yes. As of October 2026, Nimbalyst ships for macOS, Windows and Linux. Orchestrator.inc ships for all three as well, with a native ConPTY terminal host on Windows.
Which agents does Nimbalyst support?
As of October 2026, Claude Code and Codex are stable, OpenCode and GitHub Copilot are in alpha, and there is a Gemini provider. Orchestrator.inc supports 38 harnesses, including those plus Cursor, Aider, Amp and Droid.
Does Nimbalyst track CI or fix failing checks?
Not as documented as of October 2026. Its pull request features cover reviewing and approving GitHub PRs. Orchestrator.inc sends failing check names, links and the end of each failed job's log to the owning session automatically.
Is there a Nimbalyst alternative focused on pull requests?
Orchestrator.inc is one. It is Apache-2.0, runs on macOS, Windows and Linux, and follows each agent's PR through CI, review and merge. The quickstart at docs.orchestrator.inc gets two agents running on your own repository in a few minutes.