mikehasa/agentacct: README-based editorial guide
A guide grounded in the README, repository metadata, and license for installing and checking mikehasa/agentacct.
Project scope
mikehasa/agentacct describes itself in the README as "See what your coding agents did and what it cost. Breaks each task down into work steps , tools used, files changed, tests run, time and tokens spent. Local-first dashboard for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and more. No login, no telemetry.". This article keeps to facts that can be checked in the repository. Stars, forks, and promotional badges are signals of attention, not proof of quality. Under "agentacct", the README says: See what your coding agents actually did , and what it cost , in a live terminal dashboard that never leaves your machine.. That establishes the project's stated boundary, not a production test.
Suitable use cases
The README's "What you get" section gives a useful starting point for deciding whether the project fits: The work, not just the tokens. Every session rolls up its recorded work steps and machine checks , a passing test is Verified evidence, an agent's own claim stays labeled Agent reported.. If that problem is not yours, popularity is a poor reason to adopt it. Project names, commands, and component names are kept as written so a reader can return to the primary source without guessing at terminology. Another checkable README item is: Honest usage and cost. Tokens per agent, model, and day , read from the clients' own local session files and labeled clientreported; costs are clearly marked pricing-table estimates, never invoices.. It can shape a first test, but it does not replace testing in the intended environment.
How it works
The operating model is spread across sections such as "agentacct". The source evidence includes: Private by design. Everything stays on your machine: state is plain local files, nothing binds a network port, and there is no phone-home telemetry, no account, no cloud sync. agentacct never stores or requests a provider API key.. This article does not turn missing architecture, performance, or security details into claims. A real deployment still needs a look at the repository layout, configuration files, and release history.