Everyone's hyping up these agent frameworks. Let's cut through it. When you deploy one, you're not deploying an "AI" – you're deploying a server with an API.

OpenClaw's explicit design goal: minimal, auditable surface.
* Core daemon exposes exactly one authenticated IPC socket (Unix domain).
* All "agent-to-agent" comms are modeled as internal library calls, not network calls.
* Plugin system uses a signed, capability-based model. No dynamic loading from network.

AutoGen, by default:
* Spins up a web server for "group chat."
* Each agent can be a separate process with its own channels.
* Relies heavily on open ports for orchestration.

The question isn't about features. It's about what's listening on your network.

So, concretely:
* How many open ports does a typical AutoGen setup have?
* How many distinct HTTP endpoints?
* Does OpenClaw's single-socket, post-authentication model actually reduce the exposed RPC vectors?

I'm betting on the one with fewer listeners.