by sno-ai
Sno Station — your Claude Code and Codex working as one squad on your own machine. Shared encrypted memory, agent-to-agent messaging (Reach), squad skills for handoff and cross-vendor review, and a nightly loop that rewrites the agents' own skills with your approval. Open source, no daemon, no cloud required. Assembled in public.
# Add to your Claude Code skills
git clone https://github.com/sno-ai/sno-stationSee how sno-station compares with popular alternatives.
sno-station is an open-source ai agents skill for AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Codex CLI, and ChatGPT, built by sno-ai. Sno Station — your Claude Code and Codex working as one squad on your own machine. Shared encrypted memory, agent-to-agent messaging (Reach), squad skills for handoff and cross-vendor review, and a nightly loop that rewrites the agents' own skills with your approval. Open source, no daemon, no cloud required. Assembled in public. It has 51 GitHub stars.
sno-station's catalog security scan is still queued. You can run an instant dependency and prompt-injection check now with the "Scan for vulnerabilities" button above.
Clone the repository with "git clone https://github.com/sno-ai/sno-station" and add it to your Claude Code skills directory (see the Installation section above).
sno-station is primarily written in TypeScript. It is open-source under sno-ai on GitHub, so you can review or fork the full source.
Yes. SkillsLLM lists many other AI Agents skills you can browse and compare side by side. Open the AI Agents category from the badge at the top of this page, or use the Related Skills and comparison links further down to weigh sno-station against similar tools.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
⚠️ Third-Party Software Notice
This skill is third-party open-source software developed and hosted independently on GitHub. SkillsLLM is an informational directory and does not control or maintain the underlying repository.
Any security checks, ratings, or warnings displayed by SkillsLLM are automated and limited in scope. They do not constitute a security certification or guarantee that the software is safe, error-free, or free from malicious code, vulnerabilities, compromised dependencies, or prompt-injection risks.
Review the source code, permissions, dependencies, and configuration before installing or running any third-party skill. Use is at your own risk. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, SkillsLLM is not liable for losses arising from third-party software.
The deep catalog scan for this skill is still queued. Run an instant dependency check now instead.

Read in other languages: English · 中文 · Deutsch · Español · Français · Русский · 한국어 · 日本語 · 繁體中文
Sno Station is your agents' workstation: open-source software that turns the AI agents you already run, coding agents and general-purpose working agents alike, into one squad on your own machine. When one of them hits its rate limit, the other picks up with the context intact. They review each other's work, so fewer mistakes reach you. And the workspace they share gets smarter every night: it reads their sessions, proposes changes to their own skills, and waits for you to say yes.
Yours, and it stays yours. Memory, messages and skills live in one workspace on your laptop. No daemon, no server, no cloud required; the cloud side, when it comes, is optional and the product is complete without it. Apache-2.0, edge to edge. The memory store is encrypted on your machine from first use, with a key that is provisioned once and never leaves it; Sno never receives your database or your key. The full boundary, what it protects against and what it does not, is in docs/security.md.
Works in your language. Talk to your agents in English, Chinese (Simplified or Traditional), Japanese, Korean, German, French, Spanish or Russian; the memory engine stores each memory with its language, classifies by locale, and keeps CJK text intact in every key and search. The Duo skills are written to be followed in whatever language you use with your agent, and this README ships in nine.

Assembled in public. This repository is being opened one piece at a time, starting 2026-09-18. What is here today is real and runs; what is not here yet is not claimed. Every block below says when it was last updated.
Install · How to use · What runs today · Memory that forgets on purpose · Design partners · References
Last updated 2026-09-19. Not yet. The one-command install lands with the onboarding skill; until then, watch this repository. When it lands it will look like this:
# inside any Claude Code, Codex or OpenClaw conversation:
Sno onboarding
The agent runs the setup itself through the sno CLI: shared memory, Sno Reach, the
Duo skills, and the hooks each harness needs. No package names to remember.
Last updated 2026-09-19. Once installed, you keep working exactly as before, in whichever agent you like. Three things change:
sno reach call from the other one; it picks up the
task from the shared memory and the mailbox, context intact.peer-review the other's work.
The reviewer is always from the other harness.rem-reflect accept <id> for the proposals
you like. Nothing changes without that accept.What this looks like on our own machine. Three days, three reports. Last updated 2026-09-19.
Day one — it learns.

That is a real report from the RSI loop we run on this repository. Once a day it reads our own agent sessions, finds the mistakes that repeat, and proposes changes to the agents' own skill files. A human reads the proposals and accepts or rejects them. Nothing changes without that accept. The two things the owner was frustrated about that evening were rules in the live skills by the next morning; nobody typed them in.
Day two — it checks its own homework.

The next run fired on its own at 00:58, read 113 sessions, and measured the three skills it had changed the day before. Failures in all three dropped to zero. It also found a real bug in our release script that zsh had been hiding from bash. Nobody told it to look.
Day three — you install it. The RSI loop ships as a skill in this repository this week; this block becomes the install line when it does. Until then, this section updates as the loop runs: a new report each week, nothing retouched.
It is inspired by two pieces of work we keep coming back to: Andrej Karpathy's "LLM Wiki" — the idea that an agent should keep a persistent, editable wiki of what it has learned instead of re-deriving it every session — and "WikiSkill" from Google Research and Virginia Tech, which compiles an agent's own experience into persistent knowledge that rewrites its skills. Links in References.
We have had Claude Code review Codex's work and Codex review Claude Code's on this repository for months. Not one review has come back empty. Not one. We used to think that meant the work was bad. It means one reviewer from one harness is never enough.
We call the pair a Duo: the smallest squad. We never say which one is the careful one and which one is the fast one. It flips by month and by job. The point is that they differ.
What this looks like on our own machine, 2026-09-18.

One of our agents was twenty-one tasks into a twenty-seven-task build when its weekly quota reached 2%. It did not stop there and wait to die. It wrote a handover brief: what was done, what was half-done, the exact commit to continue from. Then it woke an agent from the other harness and would not let it touch anything until it had measured the brief's size and checksum and said so.
One thing went wrong, and it is the part worth reading. The receiver started editing before it had acknowledged the release. The sender caught it, paused it, rewrote the brief, and released again properly. Fourteen minutes and forty-one seconds after the handover began, the second agent was working and the first one signed off with 1% left. Every commit from before the handover is intact; the second agent continued from the first unchecked task, not from the beginning. I was asleep for all of it.
The whole night is in docs/evidence/rotation-2026-09-18/: every quota reading five minutes apart, both versions of the brief, the readiness and release receipts, and the commit summary. Host names, addresses and session ids are redacted; nothing else is touched.
Last updated 2026-09-20.
| Piece | Status |
|---|---|
packages/chunking |
In this repository, tested, published on npm |
Shared packages (common-core, utils, embedder, sno-observe, sno-station-core-crypto, content-sanitizer) |
In this repository |
| Shared memory across Claude Code, Codex and OpenClaw | Engine and all three skins in this repository; clean-machine proof pending |
| Sno Reach — agents talking to each other, no daemon | Source in this repository; release archives pending |
| The RSI loop (skill) | This week |
One-command install (sno assemble, or say "Sno onboarding" inside your agent) |
Not yet claimed |
A row says "proven" only once it has run on a clean machine; until then it says what is here.
Last updated 2026-09-19.
Memory is the floor of this product, not the headline. But the floor is where most agent memory fails, and it fails in two quiet ways: it forgets what should have stayed, and it keeps what should have decayed. The second failure is the expensive one. An agent that still "remembers" a preference you cancelled, a deadline that moved, an address you left, will act on it with full confidence.
Until this year nobody measured that. The long-term memory benchmarks people quote (LoCoMo, LongMemEval) score recall only: did the right fact come back. A system that never forgets anything scores perfectly on them. In April 2026 a group at Arizona State published Memora (Uddin, Shubham, Blanco, Baral, Wang, From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents, arXiv 2604.20006, ACL 2026 Findings). It is the first benchmark built around the second failure. Each question carries two kinds of checks: facts that must be recalled, and facts that were cancelled or superseded in the conversation and must not surface. Its headline metric, FAMA (Forgetting-Aware Memory Accuracy), is recall minus a penalty for every stale fact the agent still leans on. The paper's own finding about the six memory agents it tested: "frequent reuse of invalid memories and failures to reconcile ev