Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Gitleaks | goose | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal, GitHub | Universal, MCP | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Stars | 30318 | 55687 | 72444 |
| Last activity | October 23, 2026 | October 23, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | LOW | MEDIUM | — |
| Category | Security, Git, DevOps | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Workflow | Testing, Git, DevOps |
| Best use | Best for an individual developer or small team that wants a local pre-commit secret scan plus a second CI gate. It is especially useful around deployment configuration and environment files. It does not replace a secret manager or credential revocation after a leak. | Best for an individual developer or small team that wants an AI agent to complete an inspectable task in a working copy: understand files, make a bounded change, and run a test. Start with manual approval and scope the folder and tools. Do not give it broad access to production or sensitive data. | 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. |