Bitwarden integrates with OneCLI agent vault(onecli.sh)
onecli.sh
Bitwarden integrates with OneCLI agent vault
https://www.onecli.sh/blog/bitwarden-agent-access-sdk-onecli
47 comments
Reading the article, it sounds like this is the other way around? Bitwarden is offering a new API, and OneCLI Agent Vault is integrating with the new API.
integration is a two-way street. it doesn't matter which is stated first
I disagree that integration is commutative.
Often, we see a feature which is important to free use of a computer as a general-purpose tool locked behind an ever-changing and/or poorly documented API in a closed-source, centralized, de-facto-government-subsidized project.
The power dynamics of that situation are not symmetrical, so it does matter which project(s) are using which API(s) of the other(s).
Often, we see a feature which is important to free use of a computer as a general-purpose tool locked behind an ever-changing and/or poorly documented API in a closed-source, centralized, de-facto-government-subsidized project.
The power dynamics of that situation are not symmetrical, so it does matter which project(s) are using which API(s) of the other(s).
I added "login with google" to my website. Should I go to the news media to brag about how google is launching an integration with me?
But in this case they both made posts that point to each other.
https://bitwarden.com/blog/introducing-agent-access-sdk/#int...
https://bitwarden.com/blog/introducing-agent-access-sdk/#int...
These tools are useful, but I can't help to feel like they're solving the wrong part of the problem. I really don't have much concern that an agent has access to one of my credentials. Outside of production, most of these credentials are going to be limited in privilege and self-rotatable.
What remains terrifying is the ability to exfil important data or run commands that are malicious.
What remains terrifying is the ability to exfil important data or run commands that are malicious.
exfiltrating a credential provides persistent access (until detected and rotated) tho! probably one of the more leveraged things to prevent
OneCLI does not even have a security audit and a VC backed password manager believes that it is secure enough to integrate in their password manager.
I could not be anymore bearish on Bitwarden than before after looking at this and very glad that I don't use them.
I could not be anymore bearish on Bitwarden than before after looking at this and very glad that I don't use them.
I don't understand why this would change any opinion on Bitwarden. Bitwarden offers an API and OneCLI calls the Bitwarden API. How does a 3rd party calling Bitwarden's API say anything about Bitwarden?
Edit: I can see on Bitwarden's site they also call out their support for OneCLI, so I suppose that looks like Bitwarden saying they approve of and recommend OneCLI. But I see recommending an open source solution as a lot less problematic than recommending any other random private startup solution.
Edit: I can see on Bitwarden's site they also call out their support for OneCLI, so I suppose that looks like Bitwarden saying they approve of and recommend OneCLI. But I see recommending an open source solution as a lot less problematic than recommending any other random private startup solution.
How soon until those
of us who are running Vaultwarden need to fork the Bitwarden clients, too?
EDIT: My bad. I saw "agent" and immediately thought of AI.
It doesn't, this is why this announcement is not about Bitwarden incorporating AI.
I really don't understand the HN comments here.
Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.
I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.
Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.
I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.
There are worse things to mention about OneCLI as it looks like a completely vibe-coded mess, seeing that CLAUDE.md and Claude itself being one of the contributors [0]
Perhaps the most damning discovery is that they don't even do basic dependency pinning [1] [2] which just risks another supply chain attack.
As soon as I saw that, that was everything I needed to know about the project. No security audit whatsoever and Bitwarden believes this is something worth integrating.
[0] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/graphs/contributors
[1] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/ui/packa...
[2] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/db/packa...
Perhaps the most damning discovery is that they don't even do basic dependency pinning [1] [2] which just risks another supply chain attack.
As soon as I saw that, that was everything I needed to know about the project. No security audit whatsoever and Bitwarden believes this is something worth integrating.
[0] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/graphs/contributors
[1] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/ui/packa...
[2] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/db/packa...
Having agents contribute to a tool designed for agentic coding is thoroughly unsurprising - if anything, your contributor link showing that 873 LoC were written by Claude, in a project with tens of thousands of lines contributed, seems to show far fewer agentic contributions than I would normally expect. It seems far from vibe coded looking at those stats alone.
The lack of package pinning is unfortunate but common enough that I'd simply open a ticket (& expect them to address it) rather than writing off the entire project.
The lack of a security audit for a project this young is also unsurprising & hardly notable.
The lack of package pinning is unfortunate but common enough that I'd simply open a ticket (& expect them to address it) rather than writing off the entire project.
The lack of a security audit for a project this young is also unsurprising & hardly notable.
Yeah, it seems like this is at minimum an "ok" thing. Honestly having a good way to do secrets management with agents seems like a good idea.
Took VC money, here comes the AI enshittification.
brumbelow(1)
post-it(2)
Did you mean to post this on April 1st?
Did you actually read this article or try to understand what OneCLI does?
Nobody wrote that article, why should anybody read it?
Tangential: Where is Bitwarden on the below roadmap right now? It wasn’t even good to users, but was an alternative to 1Password and others that had long crossed this bridge.
‘Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two-sided market", where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.’
- Cory Doctorow
‘Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two-sided market", where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.’
- Cory Doctorow
> It wasn’t even good to users
I may be out of the loop, but how was Bitwarden not "good" to users? Does this relate to the recent price increase?
I may be out of the loop, but how was Bitwarden not "good" to users? Does this relate to the recent price increase?
I don't get what semantic value you're getting by pasting this. It's almost like saying "VC-funded tech = bad", which is an ironic stance to take on this platform.
Is there anything that bitwarden did that is actually bad for you as a customer of theirs?
Is there anything that bitwarden did that is actually bad for you as a customer of theirs?
What's wrong with 1Password?
They switched from a purchase with local vault storage model (where you could sync it to the cloud if you wanted to) to subscription-only with cloud storage they control.
Short of using pass, what are some good alternatives? My main critic of 1Password has been the cost, but it is a very good password manager, and price seems to have gone down... Or at least the dollars has weakened enough that the price has come down for me.
The price just went up (March 27th) https://9to5mac.com/2026/02/24/1password-announces-big-price...
Weird that their website isn't updated yet. My subscription renewed earlier this year and I noticed that the price had come down, but that's because the dollar has lost 15% of it's value since last year.
That is a pretty big price bump though, and I think it's going to cost them. It's certainly enough that I'll reconsider Bitwarden.
That is a pretty big price bump though, and I think it's going to cost them. It's certainly enough that I'll reconsider Bitwarden.
> and price seems to have gone down
They sent an email a couple months ago stating prices were increasing as of Mar 27. The family plan went from $59.88 USD per year to $71.88 But it's still worth it IMO.
They sent an email a couple months ago stating prices were increasing as of Mar 27. The family plan went from $59.88 USD per year to $71.88 But it's still worth it IMO.