Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Superpowers | goose | Hurl |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode | Universal, MCP | Universal |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 304147 | 55588 | 19271 |
| Last activity | — | October 23, 2026 | October 17, 2026 |
| Install complexity | — | MEDIUM | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required |
| Category | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Workflow | 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 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 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. |