nanobot
Ultra-lightweight, open-source, self-hosted personal AI agent framework in Python with WebUI, tools, memory, MCP, multi-agent workflows, automation, and chat apps
Runs with mockssource: GitHubhomepagePythonMITcommit d81aa5a4ab42
Python, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: agent framework, ai agent, ai agents, chatbot, chatops, discord bot, llm agents and llms.
nanobot runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 1.2 minutes and hit no errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
nanobot v0.3.0 installed from source in a venv, all 6014 automated tests pass, the gateway launches successfully, and ruff linting passes cleanly.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured
Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 92 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed . Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.
What was measured
From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.
- Install time
- 1 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 28 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 0 hit, 0 fixed with no human help
- Model tokens used
- 374,290
- Exact commit tested
- d81aa5a4ab42
- Container image
- sha256:4c3d41857be3
What was not measured
The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.
- How the result was proved
- runs before 2026-09-07 did not record the command used to check the result
- Peak GPU memory
- this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
- Behaviour over a long run
- each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
- Behaviour against real services
- this run was verified against stand-in services only
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
- **Install**: Successfully installed in a virtual env from source. `nanobot --version` shows `v0.3… - **Launch**: `nanobot gateway --foreground` starts up correctly — initializes workspace, registers… - **Tests**: **6014 passed, 18 skipped** (0 failures). Including all core tests (`tests/`), channel… - **No mocks needed** since all tests are self-contained (mock providers, in-memory fixtures). Test… tokens used 374,290 All 6014 tests pass. I now have a comprehensive picture. Let me compile the result. **Installation & test results summary:** - **Install**: Successfully installed in a virtual env from source. `nanobot --version` shows `v0.3… - **Launch**: `nanobot gateway --foreground` starts up correctly — initializes workspace, registers… - **Tests**: **6014 passed, 18 skipped** (0 failures). Including all core tests (`tests/`), channel… - **No mocks needed** since all tests are self-contained (mock providers, in-memory fixtures). Test…
Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.
How it was tested
One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.
Strengths and limits
Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.
What went well
- Nothing broke on the way: zero errors between clone and running.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Only reached a running state against stand-in services, so nothing here proves it works against the real ones.
- Took 1.2 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 3 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 4 agent-framework projects Argusic has installed and timed, nanobot was the 3rd fastest to reach a running state, and 2 of 4 reached one at all.
Also tested, in the same area
Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.
Run history
| tested by | attempt | outcome | score | cost USD | when |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Runs with mocks | 92.00 | 0.08 |
Topics (from GitHub)
agent-frameworkai-agentai-agentschatbotchatopsdiscord-botllm-agentsllmslocal-llmmcpmodel-context-protocolmulti-agentopenai-compatibleopenclawpersonal-ai-assistantpythonself-hostedtelegram-bot-ai-assistantwebuiworkflow-automation
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/nanobot)Questions
- Does nanobot run?
- nanobot runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 1 minutes, hitting 0 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test nanobot?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit d81aa5a4ab42. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test nanobot?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.08: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does nanobot take to install?
- 1.2 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
- Does nanobot need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing nanobot?
- Nothing did, in the recorded run: zero errors between clone and running.
- How does nanobot compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 4 agent-framework projects Argusic has installed and timed, nanobot was the 3rd fastest to reach a running state, and 2 of 4 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for nanobot?
- The recorded run is on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.