Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Superpowers | uv | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode | Universal | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Stars | 304170 | 91076 | 72437 |
| Last activity | — | October 20, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | — | Easy on supported systems; Homebrew must already be installed for this command. Windows and standalone installation options are explained in the guide. | — |
| Category | Code Review, Multi-Agent, Testing, Workflow | Workflow, DevOps | 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. | For a Python developer or small team that wants a shared setup rather than relying on manually installed packages. Commit the dependency definition and lockfile, then sync the environment and run commands with uv. It does not isolate the operating system or untrusted code, or replace application compatibility tests. | 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. |