Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Hurl | act | goose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal | GitHub | Universal, MCP |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 19271 | 72437 | 55590 |
| Last activity | October 17, 2026 | — | October 23, 2026 |
| Install complexity | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required | — | MEDIUM |
| Category | Testing, DevOps | Testing, Git, DevOps | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Workflow |
| Best use | Best for a developer or small team that wants repeatable API checks with explicit conditions stored beside the code. It links request data and identifies failing assertions without repeating manual inspection. It does not replace browser tests or test-environment setup; curl may be enough for a one-off request. | 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. | 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. |