Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | MarkItDown | act | Superpowers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal | GitHub | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | MIT | MIT |
| Stars | 191797 | 72437 | 304147 |
| Last activity | — | — | — |
| Install complexity | سهل / Easy | — | — |
| Category | Workflow, Research | Testing, Git, DevOps | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow |
| Best use | Best for a developer or analyst extracting text from several document formats before search or supplying selected passages to an AI agent. It provides a repeatable CLI command and Python library, while requiring review against the original. It is not intended for layout-perfect document publishing. | 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 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. |