Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to FlightPlan

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Shared, versioned memory and governance control plane for AI coding agents. Compiler pipeline resolves architectural decision conflicts across Claude Code, Cursor, and custom agent fleets.
      3
      6
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Coordination layer for AI coding agents working on the same codebase. Adds file locks, shared project memory, and cross-machine file sync so Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, and other MCP agents stop overwriting each other.
      50
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Multiplayer coordination for AI coding agents: Claude Code, Codex CLI and Cursor share one room per repository. An agent claims a path glob before it edits and a conflicting claim is refused at claim time, so collisions are prevented rather than resolved at merge. Metadata only — source code and diffs never leave the machine.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      One local memory every coding agent on your machine shares — Claude Code, Cursor, Claude Desktop, OpenCode. Answers from past sessions, commits, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md and ADRs with the exact source, and withholds work another agent has claimed so two agents don't rewrite the same thing.
      3
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables multiple AI coding agents to coordinate on a shared software project by registering, claiming tasks, declaring file intents, publishing structured change reports, and handing off context, with a local dashboard showing state in near real time.
      -
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A coordination layer for coding agents that provides memorable identities, inbox/outbox messaging, searchable message history, and file lease management to prevent conflicts. Uses Git for human-auditable artifacts and SQLite for fast queries, enabling multiple agents to collaborate across projects without stepping on each other.
      41
      2,175
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The lifecycle roles (post, list, get, update, complete, mark_landed) are clearly distinct, but collision-check functionality is spread across three tools: post_intent returns overlaps, list_intents offers glob/semantic checks, and update_intent re-runs them mid-session. An agent could reasonably hesitate over which to use for a given check, though the descriptions do clarify the intended contexts.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All names are snake_case with a leading verb (post_intent, list_intents, get_intent, update_intent, complete_intent, mark_intent_landed). The pattern is predictable and the slightly longer mark_intent_landed still fits the verb_noun convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a lightweight intent-coordination registry: each tool maps to a distinct lifecycle step (create, query, read, revise, close, correct-landing-status). Nothing feels padded or missing at the count level.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full intent lifecycle: create, list/search, get, update/heartbeat, complete (including abandonment), and post-hoc landing correction. The main minor gap is the absence of an explicit delete/retract for erroneous intents, and querying is limited to summary/glob/time rather than author or kind filters.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues