The agent successfully assembled a comprehensive explanation of Cocode by pivoting around the website's technical inaccessibility. The primary source was the GitHub README (step [9]), which contained the core product definition, architecture, and pricing model. A secondary search (step [19]) confirmed positioning around DeepSeek Harness and plugin architecture. The cocode.agency domain itself was not machine-readable—returning client-side rendered skeleton loaders that exposed no content—forcing reliance on external sources and prior knowledge.

• ›Step [9] (GitHub README) was the only content-bearing artifact that directly answered the core questions: what Cocode does (DeepSeek Harness distribution with GUI/TUI), who it's for (developers wanting control and transparency), pricing (free open-source + optional Cocode Nut service at $10/month), and how it differs (customizable presets, unified workspace, session continuity, modular architecture).
• ›The cocode.agency website itself (steps [1], [3], [14], [15]) returned only HTML skeleton loaders with no readable content, pricing, or documentation—making the domain completely unhelpful for discovery or identity verification. The agent correctly identified this friction ('The website is hard to browse') and worked around it.
• ›Step [19] was a routing step (search results) that pointed to DeepSeek Harness pages but was not content-bearing; however, it confirmed architectural dependencies. The agent cited GitHub as its source, not this search.
• ›The agent had to assemble positioning and differentiation partly from GitHub README claims ('Most coding agents make the choices for you...') and partly from logical inference about what alternatives (Cursor, Windsurf, Cline) offer—neither were explicitly compared on the published site.
• ›Pricing was only discoverable in the README, not on cocode.agency/pricing, indicating the website is not maintained as the source of truth or is broken for client-side rendering. The agent acknowledged ambiguity ('Pricing Model Vagueness') where details like Flash vs. Pro usage ranges were not spelled out.