The governed coding harness, compared.
Coding agents usually govern one editor or one vendor. LLM gateways route requests without a map of your code. Palgu does both jobs: developers code with srooterctl, and every request goes through one API with your routing, budgets, policy and audit. Teams can also route Claude Code or Codex through it (opt-in).
One API for every coding request.
Developers code with srooterctl. Every request goes through the Palgu API for routing, budgets, policy and audit, then to the provider your policy picks. Teams can also route Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or aider through it. srooterctl review sends a branch to the multi-model review council.
Palgu against the field.
Grouped by category, because the choice is not Palgu versus one tool. It is Palgu versus a coding agent, plus a gateway, plus wherever your standards live today.
| Capability | Palgugoverned coding harness | Coding agentsClaude Code, Cursor, Codex, Devin | LLM gatewaysLiteLLM, Portkey |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routing, budgets, policy and audit for other coding clients (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, aider) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Vendor-neutral, multi-provider routing | Yes | Partial | Yes |
| Shared org code graph and memory across agents | Yes | Partial | No |
| TDD and multi-model validation gate before commit | Yes | No | No |
| Budgets, policy and audit at the API layer | Yes | Partial | Yes |
| Self-hosted, sovereign, on-prem | Yes | No | Yes |
| Ships its own agent AND governs third-party agents | Yes | No | No |
LLM gateways do routing, budgets and audit. Cursor indexes your repository. Palgu connects those to the code graph, the test gate and the clients your team routes through it, instead of one editor or a stateless proxy. Coding agents are marked Partial where a single vendor offers a piece (Cursor’s multi-model, an agent’s own index) that stops at its own boundary.
Why not just use what we have?
Why not standardize on one vendor’s coding tool?
A vendor’s own controls cover that vendor’s tools and models. If your team uses more than one coding tool or provider, or wants to change models as better or cheaper ones ship, you need controls that sit outside any one vendor. Palgu keeps routing rules, budgets, policy and audit at the API layer, so a model change does not mean rebuilding governance. Developers use srooterctl, or opt in to routing Claude Code or Codex through the same control plane.
Why not just use LiteLLM or Portkey?
They do multi-provider routing, team budgets and audit trails well. Palgu does that too, and connects it to code. A general LLM gateway has no code graph, does not run your tests and cannot stop a change that breaks the build. Palgu adds a shared code graph and a validation gate, and ties spend to a repository, a diff and a test result.
Why not just use Cursor?
Cursor is a strong editor, and it can route through Palgu. Its repository index lives inside the editor, so it is not shared with a teammate on a terminal CLI. Palgu keeps one code graph and one set of standards, budgets and audit across the clients your team uses.
Start coding with srooterctl.
Install srooterctl, run srooterctl login, then srooterctl in your repository. macOS and Linux, Node 20+.