Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Superpowers | Backlog.md | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode | Universal, Codex, Claude Code, Cursor | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | MIT | MIT |
| Stars | 304170 | 7131 | 72437 |
| Last activity | — | — | — |
| Install complexity | — | Easy — npm, Bun, Homebrew, or Nix | — |
| Category | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow | Multi-Agent, Git, Workflow | Testing, Git, 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 an individual developer or small team using coding agents and wanting to review the specification and plan before code. It keeps tasks, acceptance criteria, and decisions inside the project and exposes them through CLI, a local browser, or MCP. It is not a replacement for a centralized enterprise SaaS board with organization-wide permissions and reporting. | 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. |