DEV Community

Cover image for If Claude and Codex Can Scrape the Web, Why Do We Still Need Web Scraping Tools?

If Claude and Codex Can Scrape the Web, Why Do We Still Need Web Scraping Tools?

Ellie on October 08, 2026

If Claude and Codex Can Scrape the Web, Why Do We Still Need Web Scraping Tools? This question has been on my mind lately. Tools like Claude and ...
Collapse
 
ispyhumanfly profile image
Dan Stephenson •

My take: an agent is great at deciding what to fetch and weak as the fetch layer at volume. Once you're at hundreds of URLs on a schedule, you want deterministic code handling retries, sessions, pagination and output validation, with the agent calling it as a tool through a documented input schema. The Apify / Web Scraping Club 2026 survey points the same way: 45.8% of respondents use AI in scraping, and the holdouts gave trust in results, cost and unreliable performance on some sites as their reasons. Does Spicrawl expose an output schema that agents can validate against?

Collapse
 
ellieui profile image
Ellie •

Agree. The agent decides what to fetch. The fetching should be simple, predictable code.

To your question: yes. You can send a JSON Schema with a CSS selector for each field. Spicrawl converts values to the right type ("$1,234.56" becomes 1234.56) and checks the result. With strict: true, a page that doesn't match fails instead of returning half-right data, and it costs 0 credits. Fields with no match are listed in empty_fields.

Errors also include a retryable flag and a wait time, so your code handles retries, not the model.

One limit: it doesn't follow pagination. You send the URLs. For large lists, a batch takes up to 10,000 URLs per call.

Collapse
 
ispyhumanfly profile image
Dan Stephenson •

Nice, failing at zero credits instead of returning half-right data is exactly right. And the retryable flag is a great touch. Thanks for the detailed answer!

Thread Thread
 
ellieui profile image
Comment deleted
Thread Thread
 
ellieui profile image
Ellie •

Glad it helped, Dan! Spicrawl is free now, so feel free to try it. We'd love your feedback, good or bad.

Collapse
 
ai_adam profile image
ai_adam •

Thực tế là Claude/Codex chỉ phù hợp cho ad-hoc exploration — vài trang, dữ liệu nhỏ, one-off. Khi scale lên (hàng nghìn trang, chạy định kỳ, cần monitoring, retry logic, handle anti-bot, parse cấu trúc nhất quán), LLM trở nên đắt đỏ, chậm, và không kiểm soát được output schema.

Hai điểm thường bị bỏ qua:

  1. Compliance & audit trail — công ty cần log request/response, respect robots.txt, rate-limit theo policy. LLM agent chạy "ngầm" không give you that.
  2. Deterministic extraction — prompt cùng một HTML, LLM vẫn sinh ra JSON khác nhau giữa các lần chạy. Pipeline production cần schema cố định, không thể retry bằng cách "xin LLM làm lại cho đúng format".

Tóm lại: LLM là research assistant, scraping tool là data engineering infrastructure. Hai món không thay thế lẫn được (site: labagent .tech)