Reqbook vs Hurl for Markdown API testing
Compare Reqbook and Hurl for API testing in CI: terse HTTP tests, Markdown notebooks, API docs as code, flows, and agent context.
Short answer
Reqbook is the notebook for API workflows: docs, requests, tests, flows, and coding-agent context live as runnable Markdown in your repo. Hurl is strongest as a concise command-line HTTP runner for text-based API tests, assertions, captures, and CI.
Reqbook center
Repo-native API notebooks that run from CLI, local UI, CI, MCP tools, and agent skills.
Hurl center
Hurl is strongest as a concise command-line HTTP runner for text-based API tests, assertions, captures, and CI.
Main decision
Choose based on where your API source of truth should live and who needs to operate it.
Workflow comparison
| Workflow need | Reqbook | Hurl |
|---|---|---|
| Primary artifact | Markdown notebooks that combine explanation, request examples, expected responses, assertions, and notes. | Compact HTTP test files optimized for command-line execution. |
| Documentation | The file is meant to be read as API documentation in review and by agents. | Excellent as executable tests, less focused on docs-as-code narrative. |
| Coding agents | Agents get surgical context, MCP tools, diagnosis, and a Markdown contract they can update. | Agents can run tests, but they still need surrounding API context from source or docs. |
| CI | Good for validating docs, executing endpoints, and running multi-step Markdown flows. | Very strong fit for terse HTTP tests in CI. |
| Local UI | rqb serve opens a browser workspace for browsing specs and inspecting results. | CLI-first workflow without a notebook-style local browser workspace. |
When Reqbook is the better fit
- You want the API test file to also be the human-facing docs and agent-facing context.
- You want a local browser UI plus CLI and CI from the same Markdown specs.
- You need agents to diagnose failing endpoints with structured results.
- You want flow specs that reviewers can read like product workflow documentation.
When Hurl is the better fit
- You want a mature, terse HTTP runner for CI-focused API assertions.
- You prefer compact test files over Markdown documentation.
- Your team already has separate API docs and only needs execution.
Migration path
Move one endpoint or flow first. Keep the old tool during exploration if your team still needs it.
- Keep existing Hurl tests for strict CI coverage if they work well.
- Create Reqbook notebooks for endpoints where docs, review, and agent context are the bigger problem.
- Use rqb flow for product workflows that need readable multi-step context.
- Let both tools coexist until it is clear which artifact should be the source of truth.
$ rqb init --name=my-api --yes $ rqb import openapi ./openapi.yaml $ rqb validate api-docs/ $ rqb serve
Related: read the Reqbook FAQ, open the install guide, or review the agent API context benchmark.