The Crafting Apps · read 18 October 2026

One team cloned Office in a week. Their own roadmap says it's 60% done.

WordCraft, GridCraft, DeckCraft and CADCraft are clean-room, Apache-licensed rewrites of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and AutoCAD. They were built with Claude, released on 7 October, and hold 29,271 stars between them.

Every outlet covered the claim. Almost none read the thing that makes these projects unusual: each one publishes a parity audit against the software it replaces, with a percentage, a stage, and an estimate of the hours left.

Verdict
None of the four is ready to replace the app it clones.

But
All four are further along than their coverage suggests — and far more honest about the gap.

The ledger

Four clones, one scoreboard.

Every figure below is either from the GitHub API on 18 October 2026, or a self-estimate the project publishes in its own ROADMAP.md. Self-estimates are labelled as such, because a project grading its own homework is not the same as a test result.

App Clones Stage Breadth (weighted) Ready for real work Stars Open issues
WordCraft Word processor Word 16.113.4 alpha ~80% ~60% 14,199 1,344
GridCraft Spreadsheet Excel 365 alpha ~75% ~50% 5,668 1,113
DeckCraft Presentations PowerPoint 16.113 alpha 84% ~55% 3,735 394
CADCraft 2D drafting AutoCAD 2027 pre-alpha 50% ~38% 5,669 711
SolidCraft Parametric 3D CAD Not a clone v0.15 75/76 Early 4,707 840
Stars and open issues from github.com/storytold and github.com/tangency-labs, 18 Oct 2026. Breadth and readiness are the projects' own estimates; SolidCraft's 75/76 is reference parts matching analytic volume, a different measure.

The gap

Breadth is 80–84%. Depth is 38–60%.

This is the whole story of the Crafting Apps, in one chart. Breadth counts features that exist — menus, commands, buttons. Depth asks whether those features survive a real document. The four projects measure both, and publish both.

WordCraft vs Word
Breadth~80%
Real work~60%
GridCraft vs Excel
Breadth~75%
Real work~50%
DeckCraft vs PowerPoint
Breadth84%
Real work~55%
CADCraft vs AutoCAD
Breadth50%
Real work~38%
Feature breadth — measured against the target app's own menus Ready for real work — the project's weighted self-estimate

The 20–36 point gap between the two bars is where these apps actually live. A menu that opens is not a feature that works on the file your client sent you. Each project's own docs/gaps.md lists what is missing; we summarise them on the individual pages.

What 60% buys

Three things worth knowing before you download one.

It is not a mock-up

The screenshots in these repositories are rendered by the projects' own UI test harnesses, not mocked up. The installers are code-signed. The issue trackers have four-figure counts because thousands of people ran the binaries and filed what broke.

The file is the weak point

Every one of the four names file fidelity as its biggest remaining cost. CADCraft's README says the quiet part out loud: entities it does not model "are not kept on save." Opening a document is not the same as being able to save it back without loss.

The agents are the point

All four ship an MCP server and a scriptable command line before they ship a finished product. These are built to be driven by an AI agent as much as by a person — which is a different bet from "a cheaper Word."

Read each one

The five, individually.

What they look like

The windows, not the mock-ups.

Every image below comes from the project’s own repository. None of it is a concept render, and none of it was supplied by a PR department.


Comparisons

Against the thing it says it replaces.