HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
superglue-ai
superglue
TypeScript2025–2026
superglue-ai / superglue

superglue

superglue's AI agents connect, migrate and implement enterprise systems. Cloud-hosted or on your own infrastructure.

2Distinct people
8Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

superglue's AI agents connect, migrate and implement enterprise systems. Cloud-hosted or on your own infrastructure.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month8 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-02-27 17:20:22 UTC to 2026-04-14 08:45:11 UTC.

0122025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 20252025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsSep 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsApr 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 20252025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Mar 20252025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20252025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20252025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Jun 20252025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Jul 20252025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Aug 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20252025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

8 sources

Show HN: A CLI that writes its own integration code

We run superglue, an OSS agentic integration platform. Last week I talked to a founder of another YC startup. She found a use case for our CLI that we hadn't officially launched yet. Her problem: customers wanted to create Opps in Salesforce from inside the chat in her app. We kept seeing this pattern: teams build agents and their users can perfectly describe what they want: "pull these three objects from Salesforce and push to nCino when X condition is true", but translating that into a generalized hard-coded tool the agent can call is a lot of work and does not scale since the logic is different for every user. What superglue CLI does: you point it at any API, and your agent gets the ability to reason over that API at runtime. No pre-built tools. The agent reads the spec, plans the calls, executes them. The founder using this in produc
Read the rest
tion described it like this: she gave the CLI to her agent with an instruction set and told it not to build tools, just run against the API. It handled multi-step Salesforce object creation correctly, including per-user field logic and record type templates. Concretely: instead of writing a createSalesforceOpp tool that handles contact -> account -> Opp creation with all the conditional logic, you write a skill doc and let the agent figure out which endpoints to hit and in what order. The tradeoff is: you're giving the agent more autonomy over what API calls it makes. That requires good instructions and some guardrails. But for long-tail, user-specific connectors, it's a lot more practical than building a tool for every case. Happy to discuss. Curious if others have run into the "pre-defined tool" ceiling with MCP-based connectors and how you've worked around it. Docs: https://docs.superglue.cloud/getting-started/cli-skills Repo: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue
15 points · Open discussion
How well can agents work with APIs they’ve never seen before? We tested 41 APIs across 8 different LLMs to find out. API execution is great for benchmarking, because it tests core qualities and limitations of LLMs:_the depth of the data they were trained on, their stateless architecture, context dependency, and reasoning. Today we're releasing v2 of API-Bench:_a benchmark that tests how well LLMs can execute against APIs. Here are the results: https://superglue.ai/benchmark_v2 Tl;dr:_LLMs fail at integrations because they lack ground truth, lack state, lack debugging ability, and lack access to real system context - everything API integrations fundamentally require. Here’s what we found: 1. LLMs are only as good as the data they’re trained on:_when docs change, APIs evolve, or systems are niche/long-tail, they use outdated patterns, guess
Read the rest
missing pieces and hallucinate endpoints and parameters. 2. LLMs are stateless, but integrations are stateful:_auth handshakes, pagination, retries, multi-step flows all need memory but LLMs can’t persist intermediate values or reason across steps. 3. LLMs produce code that “looks right” but fails at runtime: LLMs cannot isolate the failing step and understand real error messages, so they can’t change what’s broken or retry with new hypotheses. 4. LLMs can’t reliably interpret imperfect API design:_humans can infer the intended function, LLMs will hallucinate what looks reasonable. We open sourced the benchmark so you can test your own APIs or contribute new ones: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue/tree/main/eval/llm... Curious to hear your experience, and of course always happy to share more learnings.
In We created API-Bench to test how well LLMs execute against APIs
sfaist·Nov 25, 2025Submission

Show HN: Superglue – OSS integration tool that understands your legacy systems

If you've ever worked in a large company, you've probably encountered "shadow infrastructure": scripts nobody understands or custom connectors written once and never touched again. This glue layer isn't documented, isn't owned by anyone, and tends to break when systems are upgraded or someone leaves. It's also the part everybody dreads working on, because it's hard to understand, painful to work with, and full of unknown unknowns. We built superglue so that engineers stop wasting time on deciphering legacy APIs and documentation. superglue ingests existing glue code, SQL, configs, docs, OpenAPI specs and reverse-engineers what the system is actually doing. It then maps dependencies and regenerates everything as clean javascript code that can run directly or be exposed via MCP or SDK. It also monitors API changes and schema drift, and auto
Read the rest
matically repairs integrations when upstream systems change. In short: It turns legacy integrations into code you can easily understand, test, and update. So that engineers can do more exciting feature work, and companies can migrate and upgrade systems faster. Think of it as: a context engine + code generator + integration runtime for legacy glue. What we'd love feedback on - How do you deal with "nobody knows what this script does" situations? - What would you want to know about your legacy systems? OSS/community version: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue More info: https://superglue.ai Happy to go deeper on the technical details.
7 points · Open discussion
sfaist·Jul 24, 2025Submission

Show HN: LLMs suck at writing integration code… for now

Hi HN! Stefan here from superglue and today I’d like to share a new benchmark we’ve just open sourced: an Agent-API Benchmark, in which we test how well LLMs handle APIs. We gave LLMs API documentation and asked them to write code that makes actual API calls. Things like "create a Stripe customer" or "send a Slack message". We're not testing if they can use SDKs; we're testing if they can write raw HTTP requests (with proper auth, headers, body formatting) that actually work when executed against real API endpoints and can extract relevant information from that response. tl:dr: LLMs suck at writing code to use APIs. We ran 630 integration tests across 21 common APIs (Stripe, Slack, GitHub, etc.) using 6 different LLMs. Here are our key findings: - Best general LLM: 68% success rate. That's 1 in 3 API calls failing, which most would agree
Read the rest
isn’t viable in production - Our integration layer scored a 91% success rate, showing us that just throwing bigger/better LLMs at the problem won't solve it. - Only 6 out of 21 APIs worked 100% of the time, every other API had failures. - Anthropic’s models are significantly better at building API integrations than other providers. Here is the results chart: https://superglue.ai/files/performance.png What made LLMs fail: - Lack of context (LLMs are just not great at understanding what API endpoints exist and what they do, even if you give them documentation which we did) - Multi-step workflows (chaining API calls) - Complex API design: APIs like Square, PostHog, Asana (Forcing project selection among other things trips llms over) We've open-sourced the benchmark so you can test any API and see where it ranks: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue/tree/main/packages... Check out the repo, consider giving it a star, or see the full ranking at https://superglue.ai/api-ranking/. If you're building agents that need reliable API access, we'd love to hear your approach, or you can try our integration layer at superglue.ai. Next up: benchmarking MCP.
20 points · Open discussion
Hi HN! Adina here from superglue. Today I’d like to share a new benchmark we’ve just open sourced: an Agent-API Benchmark, in which we test how well LLMs handle APIs. tl;dr: LLMs suck at writing code to use APIs. We ran 630 integration tests across 21 common APIs (Stripe, Slack, GitHub, etc.) using 6 different LLMs. Here are our key findings: - Best general LLM: 68% success rate. That's 1 in 3 API calls failing. Would you ship that? - Our integration layer scored a 91% success rate, showing us that just throwing bigger/better LLMs at the problem won't solve it. - Only 6 out of 21 APIs worked 100% of the time, every other API had failures. - Anthropic’s models are significantly better at building API integrations than other providers. What makes LLMs fail hard: - Lack of context (LLMs are just not great at understanding what API endpoints
Read the rest
exist and what they do, even if you give them documentation which we did) - Multi-step workflows (chaining API calls) - Complex API design: APIs like Square, PostHog, Asana (Forcing project selection among other things trips llms over) We've open-sourced the benchmark so you can test any API and see where it ranks: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue/tree/main/packages... Check out the repo, consider giving it a star, or see the full ranking at https://superglue.ai/api-ranking/ If you're building agents that need reliable API access, we'd love to hear your approach - or you can try our integration layer at superglue.ai. Next up: benchmarking MCP.
In Show HN: We let agents use APIs to find out if they can actually...do things?
sfaist·Jun 2, 2025Submission

Show HN: MCPglue (Open Source) – Let your agent build its own tools

We found that many devs struggle building agent tools that work for each use case while not overwhelming the agent with too many options to pick from. That’s why we built MCPglue so your agents can build the tools they need when they need to. It gives you the reliability you’re looking for when deploying in prod, and agents the custom tools they need to do their job well. Here’s a walkthrough of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc-jdM9XnhE MCPglue allows your agent to build its own tools using the superglue integration agent. It can read the documentation of your APIs and chain endpoints together to fulfil any use case, and expose them as tools via MCP. It abstracts away API calls and data mappings, and self-heals even as inputs, upstream APIs or data change. You can use MCPglue to let your agent run cross-API workflows relia
Read the rest
bly, like fetching transactions in Stripe and updating them in Hubspot, to build agents that react to app triggers or to wrap your own API into task-specific tools agents can use. Quickstart guide: https://docs.superglue.cloud/mcp Find us on GitHub: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue Would be curious to hear how you’ve been dealing with tool use, and what you would want to build with MCPglue.
4 points · Open discussion

Show HN: Let your agent build its own tools with MCPglue

We spoke to dozens of devs trying to deploy agents in prod. We found that most of them have the following dilemma (and end up not deploying because of this): giving the agents freedom to choose from a list of tools while guaranteeing that every call stays secure, fast, and actually works. That’s why we built MCPglue. It gives you the reliability you’re looking for when deploying in prod, and agents the custom tools they need to do their job well. Here’s a walkthrough of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc-jdM9XnhE MCPglue lets your agent build its own tools. It can call the MCP to wrap and merge multiple endpoints from multiple APIs into coherent, reusable tools. MCPglue abstracts away endpoint mapping and API calls, and acts like a repository pattern that stays stable even as upstream APIs or mappings change. Use MCPglue to
Read the rest
let your agent run cross-API workflows reliably, like fetching transactions in Stripe and updating them in Hubspot, to build ambient agents that react to app triggers or to wrap your own API into task-specific tools agents can use. Repo: https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue Quickstart guide: https://docs.superglue.cloud/mcp We've seen agents handle max 10 tools at once. Would be curious to hear how many tools your agents can handle on average. And ofc what you would want to build with MCPglue.
7 points · Open discussion

Show HN: Superglue – open source API connector that writes its own code

Hi HN, we’re Stefan and Adina, and we’re building superglue (https://superglue.cloud). superglue allows you to connect to any API/data source and get the data you want in the format you need. It’s an open-source proxy server which sits between you and your target APIs. Thus, you can easily deploy it into your own infra. If you’re spending a lot of time writing code connecting to weird APIs, fumbling with custom fields in foreign language ERPs, mapping JSONs, extracting data from compressed CSVs sitting on FTP servers, and making sure your integrations don’t break when something unexpected comes through, superglue might be for you. Here's how it works: You define your desired data schema and provide basic instructions about an API endpoint (like "get all issues from Jira"). superglue then does the following: - Automatically generates the A
Read the rest
PI configuration by analyzing API docs. - Handles pagination, authentication, and error retries. - Transforms response data into the exact schema you want using JSONata expressions. - Validates that all data coming through follows that schema, and fixes transformations when they break. We built this after noticing how much of our team's time was spent building and maintaining data integration code. Our approach is a bit different to other solutions out there because we (1) use LLMs to generate mapping code, so you can basically build your own universal API with the exact fields that you need, and (2) validate that what you get is what you’re supposed to get, with the ability to “self-heal” if anything goes wrong. You can run superglue yourself (https://github.com/superglue-ai/superglue - license is GPL), or you can use our hosted version (https://app.superglue.cloud) and our TS SDK (npm i @superglue/client). Here’s a quick demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1gv6P-fas4 You can also try out Jira and Shopify demos on our website (https://superglue.cloud) Excited to share superglue with everyone here—it's early so you'll probably find bugs, but we'd love to get your thoughts and see if others find this approach useful!
198 points · Open discussion

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.