Skip to main content

The No-API Integration

Operating the screens of systems that will never get an API, with computer use standing in for the integration nobody will ever ship.

Hand-drawn line illustration in warm terracotta and cream: a loopy line-drawn hand presses a fingertip directly onto the blank cream face of a plain rectangular panel while a cable ends nearby in a connector plugged into nothing, a one-line profile face watching.

The problem it names​

A large share of real business workflows terminate in software with no API: utility permit portals, legacy ERPs, supplier extranets, government filing systems. The demand signal is unusually crisp: in a full pull of YC's Summer 2026 batch, 27 percent of companies describe integrating with API-less systems, the largest architecture requirement in the batch. Zomma's launch material names the category, "systems that will never get an API," and Whitespace describes the status quo it replaces: "6 reps typing 600 lines of orders from email into the ERP every day."

The move is to stop waiting for the API and operate the screen: the agent sees the interface, clicks, types, and reads the result, the way the human it replaces did.

Proven in the corpus​

  • Freedom Forever automates solar permit submissions on third-party utility websites with the Agent SDK, reporting a "97.5% success rate on complex web automation benchmarks where alternative frameworks hit 20–60%," built against eight internal mock sites run five iterations each. It also reports "~19,000 permit emails processed" in the first month of production. (source)
  • Duvo's agents "operate real enterprise interfaces" for multi-billion-euro retailers, per its story: SAP GUIs, supplier portals, spreadsheets, email, phone. One agent run might "log into a supplier portal, extract delivery status for 50 purchase orders, cross-reference against SAP." Reported result: "€2.8M+ in annualized savings" for one customer in three months. (source)
  • Tasklet reaches the long tail the same way: alongside 3,000+ prebuilt integrations, "Claude spins up a browser in a cloud VM" when no integration exists. (source)

What makes it work in practice​

Two disciplines separate the production stories from the demos. First, benchmarks before deployment: Freedom Forever built mock sites replicating real-world failure modes and measured against them, which is why its success number carries weight (see Strength of Evidence). Second, containment around the click: an agent driving a real screen with real credentials is the maximum-blast-radius configuration, which is why the pattern pairs with Vaults for the credentials and the Human Gate before anything submits. Zomma's own posture, "Every action stops for human approval before anything submits," is the pattern stated as policy.

The honest boundary​

Screen operation is slower and less deterministic than an API call, and always will be. Where an API exists, use it; MCP is the platform's native shape for that, per the platform docs. The no-API integration is for the workflows where the alternative is not a cleaner integration but a human keying data into a portal, and its economics are judged against that human baseline. Freedom Forever's published cost of "$0.20–$0.35" per agent run is the kind of number that settles the comparison. (source)

Further Reading​

  • Vaults: keeping credentials out of the sandbox that drives the screen.
  • The Human Gate: approval before the submit button.
  • Silent Failure: the risk profile of unattended screen work.
  • The Index: more computer-use builds across the corpus.