Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Superpowers | act | Hurl |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode | GitHub | Universal |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 304170 | 72437 | 19271 |
| Last activity | — | — | October 17, 2026 |
| Install complexity | — | — | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required |
| Category | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow | Testing, Git, DevOps | Testing, DevOps |
| Best use | 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. | 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 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. |