Rlhf Feedback Loop vs Exogram Authority Runtime

In-depth architectural comparison of the Rlhf Feedback Loop and Exogram Authority Runtime MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Rlhf Feedback Loop when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Rlhf Feedback Loop Details

Choose Exogram Authority Runtime when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Exogram Authority Runtime Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Rlhf Feedback Loop Developer Tools	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools
Summary	RLHF feedback loop for AI agents. Capture feedback, block mistakes, export DPO data.	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "rlhf-feedback-loop": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "thumbgate"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "exogram-authority-runtime": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/server-memory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons