[Claude Code is over?] These days, with the proliferation of Claude Code teams, Notion AI, and mobile-based agents, there seem to be a lot of aggressive posts claiming "OpenClaude is over." Having run OpenClaude for about a month and then upgrading it to the max, I can honestly say that these new products are structurally incapable of effectively replacing OpenClaude. My current agent architecture is parallel. But it's not just parallel; even LLM is different. - One agent acts as an overseer based on Sonnet 4.5. During development, we upgrade to Opus 4.6, with Minimax 2.5 as the fallback. They're responsible for overall workflow management and decision-making. Their goal is to ensure uninterrupted work flow. They actively run Claude Code. - Another agent is dedicated to code reviews and crypto trading based on Codex. The fallback is Grok. They conduct code reviews before the first agent activates CC. They focus on logic and risk. The final friend is a Gemini-based content agent. We use grok for research. All of our X content and YouTube ideas come from here. The core of this architecture isn't a specific model, but the separation of roles and parallel operation between models. Each company's SaaS-based agents essentially operate within a single ecosystem. Naturally, there's no option to choose LLM. Claude can only use Claude, and Grok can only use Grok. Notion AI and Perplexity are optimized only within their own platforms. The Claude code team is strong in code collaboration. However, it's impossible to create a structure where Gemini-based content production runs in parallel, research is supplemented with Grok, and the entire process is coordinated by Sonnet Overseer. This is structurally blocked because it's a service-based system. This structure doesn't allow agents to leverage each other's strengths. In contrast, OpenClaud separates models, SaaS, and mobile interfaces into layers. Models are interchangeable, and fallback systems can be freely designed. Distributed operation by role is possible. The update speed for this also varies, with patches released nearly five times a week. It's a misconception to attribute this to imperfect software. We live in a world where five major LLM companies release ten new products a week. This means not just simple feature additions, but rapid iterations of experimentation and modifications on newly emerging language models and products. This is an example of why well-built, well-maintained open source evolves faster than services tied to a specific company. SaaS agents are complete tools. Openclaw is infrastructure. Complete tools are convenient, but difficult to restructure. Infrastructure is composable. Parallel operation of multiple language layers is difficult to implement within the services of a single AI company. It's the difference between "using" an agent and "operating" an agent. This is why I constantly tell my friends, "Whether you like or dislike Openclaw is not a matter of functionality, but rather a matter of skill."

Please tell me how to use OpenClaw.