Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Superpowers | goose | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode | Universal, MCP | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Stars | 304147 | 55588 | 72437 |
| Last activity | — | October 23, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | — | MEDIUM | — |
| Category | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow | Code Review, Multi-Agent, 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 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. |