Carbon Manufacturing Operations
Plan materials, run shop-floor work, and manage quality and costs in one manufacturing system.
- Source repo
- crbnos/carbon
- Stars
- ★ 2.7k
- Last updated
- 1d ago
- License
- NOASSERTION
- Primary language
- TypeScript
- FA score
- 49/100 · Major gaps
At a glance
- How it runs
- Works with
- Universal · cross-platformOpenAI API · Claude API (Partial support)
- Cost
- Free tier plus a paid hosted plan
- Setup effort
- High · needs real infrastructure
- You'll need
- Typical use
- A contract manufacturer links quotes, sales orders, production jobs, and invoices while checking actual job costs.
- Not a fit if
- Teams that only need a lightweight inventory tracker
- Teams unwilling to deploy or maintain database and application services
- Source review
- 49/100 · Major gaps
What does this agent do, and when should you use it?
Carbon brings ERP, MRP, MES, and QMS into one Postgres database, covering quotes, orders, purchasing, inventory, planning, shop-floor execution, quality, and accounting. Engineering, planning, production, and quality share records, including multi-level BOMs, revisions, routings, and forward and backward lot and serial traceability. Users work through React Router apps, call the permission-checked REST API, or let AI clients use the same manufacturing operations through MCP. Carbon Cloud manages the application, database, updates, and backups; self-hosting is supported in a VPC, on premises, or in an air-gapped environment. It is aimed at manufacturers connecting complex assembly or high-mix, low-volume workflows, and local development requires Docker, Node.js 22, and pnpm.
Carbon stores quotes, sales orders, purchasing, inventory, BOMs, routings, planning, jobs, inspections, and accounting records in a shared Postgres system. MRP and scheduling handle demand, supply, and finite-capacity planning; MES provides digital travelers, operator terminals, 3D instructions, barcode capture, and labor capture. Quality workflows cover inspections, FAI, nonconformance, CAPA, calibration, and risk management, while traceability follows lots and serials in both directions. The application uses the same manufacturing operations exposed through POST /api/v1/{module}/{operation} and MCP tools; access follows the API key or signed-in user's permissions. A self-hosting developer can run the local Docker backend and ERP/MES apps, or use the managed Carbon Cloud service.
- A contract manufacturer links quotes, sales orders, production jobs, and invoices while checking actual job costs.
- Engineering and production teams manage multi-level BOMs, revisions, change orders, and product configurations without re-keying them across systems.
- Planners use demand, supply, routings, and finite-capacity scheduling to plan work and spot material shortages.
- Shop-floor supervisors assign digital travelers on tablets and support operators with barcode capture, labor capture, and 3D work instructions.
- Quality teams record first article inspections, nonconformances, CAPA, and calibration, then trace affected lots or serials.
- Teams that want AI clients to perform permission-scoped manufacturing operations connect to Carbon's MCP server.
How do you install or deploy this agent?
Choose a Carbon Cloud trial or start the full development stack locally as documented in the repository. Production self-hosting is supported in a VPC, on premises, or in an air-gapped environment; consult the project's self-hosting deployment guide for production configuration.
Local development requires Docker, Node.js 22, and pnpm via Corepack. The documented startup steps are:
git clone https://github.com/crbnos/carbon.git && cd carbon
corepack enable && pnpm install
cp .env.example .env
pnpm devHow do you use this agent?
After the development stack starts, open the ERP at http://localhost:3000 or MES at http://localhost:3001. The seeded local user is [email protected], and the dev stack skips the magic link. Populate a demo dataset with:
pnpm db:seed:dev -- --email [email protected] --dataset satelliteThe API and MCP expose the same manufacturing operations and permissions. Create an API key, then make a first request:
curl -X POST https://app.carbon.ms/api/v1/sales/getSalesOrders \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $CARBON_API_KEY" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{ "args": { "limit": 10 } }'Self-hosted instances serve the API at /api/v1. An MCP client can connect to the hosted or local MCP service; available tools are scoped to the API key or signed-in user. The README says API keys and MCP are included with Business and Enterprise plans, and using them in a self-hosted deployment requires a commercial license.
What are this agent's strengths and limitations?
- ERP, MRP, MES, and QMS share one Postgres database, avoiding synchronization jobs between separate product databases.
- The product spans multi-level BOMs, revisions, finite-capacity scheduling, shop-floor execution, quality workflows, and two-way lot/serial traceability for complex assembly and high-mix, low-volume production.
- REST API and MCP use the same operations and identity permissions, with scoped API keys or signed-in user access.
- Teams can choose managed Carbon Cloud or deploy in a VPC, on premises, or air-gapped.
- The local full stack requires Docker, Node.js 22, pnpm, and several backend services, so setup and operations are substantial.
- Hosted API keys and MCP are tied to Business and Enterprise plans; using them in a self-hosted deployment requires a commercial license.
- The repository uses an open-core license model:
packages/eeand files containing.ee.in their names are under the Carbon Commercial License rather than AGPLv3. - Its broad, manufacturing-specific scope may be excessive for teams that only need lightweight inventory tracking.
How does this agent compare with similar options?
The README presents Carbon as an open-source alternative to NetSuite, Epicor, SAP Business One, Plex, Odoo, and ERPNext, and links to comparison pages for those products.
Key facts side by side with the most closely related agents.
| Agent | Source review | Form / cost | Stars | Updated | Language | Full support on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Manufacturing Operations This agent | 49 · Major gaps | Hosted serviceFreemium | ★ 2.7k | 1d ago | TypeScript | — |
| OptimNow Cloud FinOps Library | 65 · Some gaps | Agent plugin / skillFree | ★ 63 | today | Python | Claude Code |
| AI Gateway Labs | 53 · Major gaps | CLIFree + model costs | ★ 1k | 1mo ago | Jupyter Notebook | — |
| Jev Browser | 75 · Some gaps | MCP serverFree + model costs | ★ 125 | 4d ago | JavaScript | Claude Code |
How does FollowAgents rate this agent?
Why each dimension lost points
README asserts Postgres row-level security, RBAC/ABAC, and shared identity across app, API and MCP; tests show a service context carrying a permissions object, which is reasonable least-privilege evidence (2). But MCP tool and API-key authorization granularity, key storage and rotation are not detailed in visible files, so deducted. User confirmation appears only in crbn restore prompts and --yes (1). Data-flow transparency: README mentions Inngest callbacks and external integrations (Stripe, Slack, AI providers) without flow detail (1). Sensitive data: restore scrubs emails by default, truncates storage.objects and warns, a positive signal (2), though production snapshot restore is high-risk and --no-scrub-emails disables scrubbing. Dependency security: only patchedDependencies, onlyBuiltDependencies and lockfiles; no audit or vulnerability handling evidence (1). External effects: workflows can push images and deploy, gated by vars and explicit configuration (1). Rollback: restore exits nonzero and applies no migrations on verification failure, partial rollback evidence (1), but no general change-rollback mechanism. Source attribution: LICENSE states copyright holder, AGPLv3 and commercial-license boundary; test files carry SPDX headers (2).
Tests assert concurrency claims, guarded writes, refusal and rollback paths in detail, corroborating service code; self-consistency is good (2). Dependency availability: relies on many external services (Inngest, Redis, PostgREST, GoTrue, Storage, optional Rust/OCCT build); local run needs Docker and Node 22; README claims no external accounts needed, but the assembler needs a 15–30 minute native build, an availability burden (1). Failure messages: tests assert specific messages (e.g. 'Each line must have either a debit or credit amount', 'Currency USD has no precision'), so messages are clear (2).
Audience and scenarios are clear: manufacturing ERP/MES/QMS with self-host, cloud, air-gapped deployment and a starter app (2). Capability boundaries: README states API/MCP require a commercial license, the assembler is optional, and enterprise features live under packages/ee (2). Trigger precision: workflow and MCP tool trigger conditions lack detail in visible files; only agent-labels is manual-trigger (1). Environment fit: Docker, WSL/Git Bash notes and per-worktree isolated stacks are documented (2).
Information architecture: README has a full contents list and a clear monorepo structure table (2). Install notes: local development, assembler and snapshot restore steps are thorough (2). Naming stability: workspace version 0.1.0 with no release-versioning evidence (1). Examples and FAQ: a curl example and seed datasets exist, but no FAQ (1). Known limitations: mentions API commercial license, optional assembler and storage 404 after restore, but no systematic limitations list (1). License: LICENSE clearly defines AGPLv3 plus commercial-license partition, but repository metadata says NOASSERTION, an inconsistency (2). Versioning/changelog: no CHANGELOG found (1). Maintenance responsibility: publisher unverified, ownership of maintenance unclear (1).
Output usability: API returns structured results (applied/alreadyApplied/refused/failed) and an OpenAPI spec enables typed clients (2). Marginal value: integrates ERP/MRP/MES/QMS with bidirectional lot/serial traceability on one Postgres schema, a differentiated value (2). Cost-benefit: self-hosting needs Docker, multiple services and an optional 15–30 minute OCCT build, so operational cost is non-trivial (1).
Claim traceability: README claims mostly point to external docs sites; in-repo evidence is limited (1). Cross-source corroboration: tests and service code corroborate some behavior, but README feature claims lack in-repo supporting evidence (1). Fact/inference separation: marketing phrasing ('hard tech unicorns') is mixed with factual statements without clear separation (1).
- Publisher identity is unverified; maintenance responsibility and update path are unclear and should be independently confirmed before adoption.
- API and MCP require a commercial license for self-hosting, and enterprise features live under packages/ee; assess license compliance.
- Repository license metadata is NOASSERTION, inconsistent with the AGPLv3 statement in LICENSE; confirm with legal.
- Self-hosting depends on Docker, Inngest, Redis, PostgREST and other services, and the assembler needs a 15–30 minute native build, raising operational cost.
- Production snapshot restore scrubs emails by default but can be disabled and truncates storage.objects; verify data-safety settings before use.
FAQ
Can I self-host Carbon for free?
packages/ee and files whose names contain .ee. use the Carbon Commercial License. API keys and MCP require a commercial license in a self-hosted deployment.