Cool to see lots of people independently come to "CLIs are all you need". I'm still not sure if it's a short-term bandaid because agents are so good at terminal use or if it's part of a longer term trend but it's definitely felt much more seamless to me then MCPs.
100% - sharing CLIs with the agent has felt like another channel to interact with them once I’ve done it enough, like a task manager the agent and I can both use using the same interface
Yes, I'm using Dagger and it has great secret support, obfuscating them even if the agent, for example, cats the contents of a key file, it will never be able to read or print the secret value itself
tl;Dr there are a lot of ways to keep secret contents away from your agent, some without actually having to keep them "physically" separate
At this point I'm fully down the path of the agent just maintaining his own tools. I have a browser skill that continues to evolve as I use it. Beats every alternative I have tried so far.
Same. Claude Opus 4.5 one-shots the basics of chrome debug protocol, and then you can go from there.
Plus, now it is personal software... just keep asking it to improve the skill based on you usage. Bake in domain knowledge or business logic or whatever you want.
I'm using this for e2e testing and debugging Obsidian plugins and it is starting to understand Obsidian inside and out.
https://relay.md is a company I'm working on for shared knowledge management/ AI context for teams, and the Obsidian plugin is what i am driving with my live-debug and obsidian-e2e skills.
I can try to write it up (I am a bit behind this week though...), but I basically opened claude code and said "write a new skill that uses the chrome debug protocol to drive end to end tests in Obsidian" and then whenever it had problems I said "fix the skill to look up the element at the x,y coordinate before clicking" or whatever.
Skills are just markdown files, sometimes accompanied by scripts, so they work really naturally with Obsidian.
Hey FWIW Relay is AWESOME!!
The granular sharing of a given dir within a vault (vs the whole thing) finally solves the split-brain problem of personal (private) vault on my own hardware vs mandated use of a company laptop... it's fast, intuitive, and SOLVES this long-time thorn in my side. Thanks for creating it, high five, hope it leads to massive success for you! :)
Writing your own skill is actually a lot better for context efficiency.
Your skill will be tuned to your use case over time, so if there's something that you do a lot you can hide most of the back-and-forth behind the python script / cli tool.
You can even improve the skill by saying "I want to be more token efficient, please review our chat logs for usage of our skill and factor out common operations into new functions".
If anything context waste/rot comes from documentation of features that other people need but you don't. The skill should be a sharp knife, not a multi-tool.
Creator of Browser Use here, this is cool, really innovative approach with ARIA roles. One idea we have been playing around with a lot is just giving the LLM raw html and a really good way to traverse it - no heuristics, just BS4. Seems to work well, but much more expensive than the current prod ready [index]<div ... notation
I actually tried a raw HTML when I was exploring solutions. It worked for "one-off" tasks, but I ran into major issues with replayability on modern SPAs.
In React apps, the raw DOM structure and auto-generated IDs shift so frequently that a script generated from "Raw HTML" often breaks 10 minutes later. I found ARIA/semantics to be the only stable contract that persists across re-renders.
You mentioned the raw HTML approach is "expensive". Did you feed the full HTML into the context, or did you create a BS4 "tool" for the LLM to query the raw HTML dynamically?
I’d like to see this other browser plugin’s API be exposed via your same CLI, so I don’t have to only control a separate browser instance.
https://github.com/remorses/playwriter
(I haven’t investigated enough to know how feasible it is, but as I was reading about your tool, I immediately wanted to control existing tabs from my main browser, rather than “just” a debug-driven separate browser instance.)
Thanks! To clarify: webctl allows you to manually interact with the browser window at any time. It even returns "manual interaction" breakpoints to stdout if it detects an SSO/login wall.
But I agree, attaching to the OS "daily driver" instance specifically would be a nice addition.
If you look at Elixir keynote for Phoenix.new -- a cool agentic coding tool -- you'll see some hints about a browser control using a API tool call. It's called "web" in the video.
The main difference is likely the targeting philosophy. webctl relies heavily on ARIA roles/semantics (e.g. role=button name="Save") rather than injected IDs or CSS selectors. I find this makes the automation much more robust to UI changes.
Also, I went with Python for V1 simply for iteration speed and ecosystem integration. I'd love to rewrite in Rust eventually, but Python was the most efficient way to get a stable tool working for my specific use case.
A background daemon holds the session state between different CLI calls. This daemon is started automatically on the first webctl call and auto-closes after a timeout period of inactivity to save resources.
Yes, you can create isolated environments using the "--session NAME" flag.
It isolates cookies and local storage for that specific run. Since it's a V1 release, there might be some edge cases in the session isolation - if you hit any, please open an issue!
I don't have an objective benchmark yet. I tried several existing solutions, especially the MCP servers for browser automation, and none of them were able to reproducibly solve my specific task.
An objective benchmark is a great idea, especially to compare webctl against other similar CLI-based tools. I'll definitely look into how to set that up.
I actually think the CLI approach helps with those boundaries.
Because webctl commands are discrete and pipeable (e.g. webctl snapshot | llm | webctl click), the "authority" is reset at every step of the pipeline. It feels easier to audit a text stream of commands than a socket connection that might be accumulating invisible context.
(my one of many contribution https://github.com/caesarnine/binsmith)
Nevertheless, I prefer the CLI for other reasons: it is built for humans and is much easier to debug.
tl;Dr there are a lot of ways to keep secret contents away from your agent, some without actually having to keep them "physically" separate
Plus, now it is personal software... just keep asking it to improve the skill based on you usage. Bake in domain knowledge or business logic or whatever you want.
I'm using this for e2e testing and debugging Obsidian plugins and it is starting to understand Obsidian inside and out.
I can try to write it up (I am a bit behind this week though...), but I basically opened claude code and said "write a new skill that uses the chrome debug protocol to drive end to end tests in Obsidian" and then whenever it had problems I said "fix the skill to look up the element at the x,y coordinate before clicking" or whatever.
Skills are just markdown files, sometimes accompanied by scripts, so they work really naturally with Obsidian.
https://notes.danielgk.com/Obsidian/Obsidian+E2E+testing+Cla...
Your skill will be tuned to your use case over time, so if there's something that you do a lot you can hide most of the back-and-forth behind the python script / cli tool.
You can even improve the skill by saying "I want to be more token efficient, please review our chat logs for usage of our skill and factor out common operations into new functions".
If anything context waste/rot comes from documentation of features that other people need but you don't. The skill should be a sharp knife, not a multi-tool.
I actually tried a raw HTML when I was exploring solutions. It worked for "one-off" tasks, but I ran into major issues with replayability on modern SPAs.
In React apps, the raw DOM structure and auto-generated IDs shift so frequently that a script generated from "Raw HTML" often breaks 10 minutes later. I found ARIA/semantics to be the only stable contract that persists across re-renders.
You mentioned the raw HTML approach is "expensive". Did you feed the full HTML into the context, or did you create a BS4 "tool" for the LLM to query the raw HTML dynamically?
I’d like to see this other browser plugin’s API be exposed via your same CLI, so I don’t have to only control a separate browser instance. https://github.com/remorses/playwriter (I haven’t investigated enough to know how feasible it is, but as I was reading about your tool, I immediately wanted to control existing tabs from my main browser, rather than “just” a debug-driven separate browser instance.)
But I agree, attaching to the OS "daily driver" instance specifically would be a nice addition.
Video: https://youtu.be/ojL_VHc4gLk?t=2132
More discussion: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/23/phoenix-new/
https://github.com/rumca-js/crawler-buddy
More like a framework for other mechanisms
How is it different?
The main difference is likely the targeting philosophy. webctl relies heavily on ARIA roles/semantics (e.g. role=button name="Save") rather than injected IDs or CSS selectors. I find this makes the automation much more robust to UI changes.
Also, I went with Python for V1 simply for iteration speed and ecosystem integration. I'd love to rewrite in Rust eventually, but Python was the most efficient way to get a stable tool working for my specific use case.
"browser automation for ai agents" is a popular idea these days.
It isolates cookies and local storage for that specific run. Since it's a V1 release, there might be some edge cases in the session isolation - if you hit any, please open an issue!
An objective benchmark is a great idea, especially to compare webctl against other similar CLI-based tools. I'll definitely look into how to set that up.