Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | act | Miller | Superpowers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | GitHub | Universal, MCP, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | BSD-2-Clause | MIT |
| Stars | 72437 | 10049 | 304170 |
| Last activity | — | October 21, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | — | EASY | — |
| Category | Testing, Git, DevOps | Workflow, Data | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow |
| Best use | Best for a developer or small team that repeatedly edits GitHub Actions workflows and wants to test a job before pushing. It provides a local run log, while a final GitHub check remains necessary. It is not suitable when exact hosted-runner parity is required. | Ideal for developers, data analysts, and operators who need to clean a CSV export, inspect JSON Lines, or summarize a large file from the terminal without starting a Python project. Use it for quick, repeatable file processing; concurrent transactions and advanced visual analysis still call for a database or complementary analytics tool. | Best for a developer or project owner working on a substantial feature or a difficult bug. It helps clarify requirements, approve a plan, and inspect tests and file changes. Its value is a visible path from decision to verification. A small text edit may not need the full workflow. |