nimbalyst is a visual workspace for multi-agent coding — a board of agent sessions and a stack of WYSIWYG editors you arrange yourself. defract is a different bet: an opinionated pipeline that carries a story from idea to shipped, with design as a gated stage, agent-reviewed merges, and memory that compounds. all of it built to lower the load in your head.
they share more than most. both defract and nimbalyst are visual desktop apps that run agents in parallel git worktrees on claude code, and both put a visual surface in front of you instead of a row of terminals. that's a real overlap — more than we share with most tools. the difference is what the visuals are for: in nimbalyst they're editors and a board you arrange and maintain; in defract the design stage is a step in a process — produced by an agent, gated by your approval, and wired into what gets built next.
nimbalyst gives you a freeform visual workspace and a kanban of agent sessions — you decide what the structure is and keep it current. defract is built around a fixed pipeline.
scope → design → architecture → implementation → review → release. you weigh in at each gate; agents do the work in between. the process lives in the tool, not in a board you maintain by hand — so you stop holding the shape of the work in your head.
this is the closest place the two tools meet — and the clearest place they differ.
a stack of WYSIWYG editors — mockups, excalidraw, diagrams, data models — sitting next to your code as canvases you open and edit yourself.
design is a gated stage in the lifecycle: an agent produces the design, you approve it, and that approved design drives implementation. it's a step in the process, not a drawing surface you keep in sync.
defract gates every merge and keeps your code on your machine.
types, lint and tests gate every merge, plus review agents for architecture, security and ux. code only progresses once it's signed off — you review intent and shape on a purpose-built surface, not an 800-line diff.
your PTY transcripts never leave the device and you pay anthropic directly for the model — no markup, no middleman. it's a guarantee we state plainly.
| defract | nimbalyst | |
|---|---|---|
| unit of work | a story shipped to production | a session on a visual board |
| structure | guided pipeline: scope → design → architecture → implementation → review → release | freeform visual workspace + kanban you arrange yourself |
| design | a gated lifecycle stage — agent-produced, you approve, it drives implementation | WYSIWYG editors (mockups, excalidraw, diagrams, data models) as side canvases |
| code review | agents review agents (types · lint · tests · architecture · security · ux); merge gated on sign-off | you review the work yourself |
| visual editors | design stage + purpose-built review uis per phase | 7+ WYSIWYG editors (markdown · code · mockups · excalidraw · data models · csv) |
| parallel git worktrees | ›yes parity | ›yes |
| local-first / economics | PTY transcripts stay on device; you pay anthropic directly | not documented |
| models today | claude code (codex · gemini · opencode in v1) | claude code + codex |
| platform | macos (windows · linux in v1) | macos · windows · linux · ios |
| availability | open beta — download now | available now |
we'll be straight: nimbalyst is cross-platform now — macos, windows, linux and ios — while defract is macos-only in the open beta. it ships a broader set of visual editors than we do, and it runs codex first-class today. if what you want is a rich visual canvas on every device, with editors for everything from mockups to data models, it's a strong pick.
defract is a narrower, more opinionated bet: claude code on macos for now, with codex, gemini, opencode and windows + linux landing in v1. we're not asking you to choose us on editor count — we're asking you to choose a process that carries the work for you, with design as a real stage and review you don't have to do alone.
download the open beta. if you've been living in a visual workspace, we'd especially love your eyes on the pipeline.