no_human alternative: Provefab compared
no_human and Provefab solve the same problem the same way: an agent turns an issue into a pull request on your own machine, a second model reviews it, and nothing ships on the agent’s word alone. They differ in who reviews, how work is triggered, which platforms they run on, their license, and whether a merge can ever happen without a person. Both are good choices; this page is here to help you pick.
Side by side
| no_human | Provefab | |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT (LICENSE) | Functional Source License, Apache 2.0 after two years (LICENSE) |
| Price | “Free and open-source” (README) | Core free; Pro EUR 79 per month per GitHub organization |
| Where it runs | “on your machine” (README) | Your Mac, as a background service |
| Platforms | Download badges for macOS, Windows and Linux (README) | macOS only today |
| Coding agent | claude (default), codex or local (BACKENDS.md) |
Claude Code, Codex or Pi, chosen per model and stage |
| Reviewer | “A different model, in a session that never saw the coder’s transcript” (README); by default it “stays on Claude” (BACKENDS.md) | Always a different model provider than the implementer’s (usage) |
| Trigger | CLI (nh task add <issue URL>), Jira and Linear polling (README) |
A label on a GitHub issue |
| Merge | “There is no auto-merge anywhere; merge is always a human action” (security.md) | Core: a person merges. Pro: optional auto-merge of small, tested changes under a policy |
When no_human is the better choice
Pick no_human if you want an MIT license, if you work on Windows or Linux, or if your issues live in Jira or Linear. It is free, it runs locally, and its reviewer works in a session that never saw the coder’s reasoning, which is a sound design.
When Provefab fits better
Pick Provefab if you want the reviewer to come from a different vendor than the coder every time, not only a different model: a Claude implementation is reviewed by an OpenAI model and the other way round. Provefab is driven by GitHub labels, so the person who can triage an issue is the person who authorizes work on it. It routes each stage to the cheapest model that fits and reports what each pull request cost. And if you want some changes to merge on their own, Provefab Pro can do it for small pull requests that add or change a test, on private repositories, with fail-closed checks; everything else waits for a person.
What they share
Both run the agents on your machine with your own plans or keys, both refuse to trust a pull request only because the coder says it is done, and both leave the final call to a person by default. If you already use one, the other is worth a look for the parts above, not for a different philosophy.
See how Provefab verifies a pull request in How to verify AI-generated pull requests, or look at the pull requests Provefab opened on its own repository.