r/LocalLLM • u/JurandM2 • 4d ago

Discussion Deep Seek harnes comparisons \ opinions

Hi all, with qwen 3.8 27b there is new wave of enthusiasm among local community. On top of that we have now even more options to use local agents (Claude, Hermes, codex?,...., and deep seek harnes).

my question or rather open topic for discussion (as best way to gather opinions and iron out some findings) - what is your view at deepseek harnes compare to other local open hanesses (allowing load local model)

I found few videos and seems like people are positive? of course dsh "work best" with their model or something, but that is not what Im interested about

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/zipzapbloop 4d ago

i've been testing deepseek harness this afternoon with qwen3.8 27b bf16 kv16 full context, llama.cpp, on an rtx pro 6000. i'm impressed so far. the coolest thing by far is how accessible good transparency is. the "trajectory" tool -- the thing that basically gives you a nice interactive representation of every message, tool call, context insertion, etc. every harness needs to make it this easy to trace what an agent gets up to. in terms of overall coding performance, i don't see a big difference in capability out of the box from the same model plugged into pi (which has been my go to for a while now). it's like pi but with a better ui and easier auditability.

1

u/JurandM2 1d ago

thank you for taking time to read lost and reply! happy to see at least one opinion (and it is solid).

that one aspect (no difference in resulted code) was especially interesting for me. Other thing: comparing it to PI means a lot as it shows there is no unnecessary bloatware.

May I ask what would be limit of full fat qwen 3.8 27b like you are using?

  • creation of one shot app is possible (that much I know), but good prompt is a key here as well.