No, I would not suggest swapping to Hermes or Claude Code either. What made the difference in our OpenClaw cost base was not a model swap. It was architectural discipline: detached, trigger-based processes running continuously, 智能路由 that sends the right 财务 task to the right model, and clear segmentation so the agent books, reconciles, and reports from proper source documents rather than guessing like an untrained intern. In our case, token burn dropped from the equivalent of 34 billion per month down to 1.5 billion, and now sits near 0.75 billion. That is a real 损益表 and balance-sheet impact, not a benchmark bragging right.
OpenCode 代理 is a useful fallback for troubleshooting, more reliable than Hermes, cheaper than Claude Code, and comparable in stability to Grok 代理. Even so, OpenClaw still fills gaps that OpenCode does not. So this is not a vendor contest. For AINNA's SME clients, it is a 系统 设计 contest. Throwing expensive models at messy 财务 data does not fix bad ledgers. Better process architecture does, and that is where measurable ROI lives.
Official Cross-Network Resource
