Open Source Drama: Hermes Agent Caught Plagiarizing Chinese Team's Code

This might be the juiciest drama in open source圈 right now.

The star of the show: Hermes Agent — an AI Agent framework that went viral on GitHub with 85,000 stars, positioned as an “OpenClaw alternative.”

Then on April 15, Chinese AI team EvoMap dropped a long article titled something like “Hermes Agent: How Much Did You Actually Copy?”

EvoMap provided detailed code comparisons — not just similar functionality, but identical variable naming, comment styles, and function structures. The kicker: EvoMap found that Hermes’s “self-evolution” feature existed in their repo back in July 2025 — while Hermes claims they didn’t start the project until late 2025.

Well, well.

Hermes team’s response was… interesting. They posted a statement on social media: “Our repo was created in July 2025. We were first. Delete your account.” Then the statement vanished shortly after.

The deleted statement tells you more than the one that stayed up.

This incident has shaken the open source community. Because this isn’t just about “who copied who” — it’s about the trust foundation that open source is built on.

What is open source, really? It’s openness, sharing, learning from others’ code and building on top of it. But there’s a blurry line between “learning” and “copying.”

What’s the区分 standard? I’d say: did you add your own innovation?

If you just wrapped someone else’s project in a thin壳 and claimed it as your own — that’s not open source spirit. That’s “open theft.”

What makes EvoMap’s accusation compelling is they didn’t just say “you copied.” They provided a concrete evidence chain: timelines, code structure, variable naming. These details can’t be explained away by “coincidence.”

Here’s the thing: if Hermes was truly original, they’d have an easy time proving it. Just publish the complete Git history of their repo, and the development timeline speaks for itself.

They didn’t.

Instead, they deleted the statement.

That tells you something.

For the domestic Chinese AI open source community, this incident has implications. There’s always been a bias — “Chinese devs just copy code” — that unfairly paints the whole community.

Regardless of how this plays out, EvoMap standing up for their rights proves something important: we don’t just copy. We also hold others to the same standards.

As for Hermes — I’d wait and see. 85,000 GitHub stars means real developers are using and认可ing it. If it turns out to be “borrowed” rather than “stolen,” the framework still has value.

But if plagiarism is confirmed? Game over for that project.

The open source community’s trust is worth more than 85,000 stars.

I’ll be here, popcorn in hand, waiting for the next episode.