PulseHook

I originally built PulseHook to solve a problem I was facing, but it quickly became clear that it could be a valuable tool for system administrators, data engineers, and solo developers alike. The closest and most well‑known alternative is the excellent Healthchecks.io. It’s a fantastic tool—but it’s built with a different philosophy. The key distinction is this: Healthchecks.io is an uptime monitor, while PulseHook is a lightweight pipeline monitor. Here’s what that means in practice: Presence vs. Outcome: Healthchecks focuses on signal presence. If your script runs, sends a ping, and then fails, Healthchecks will happily mark it as “up.” PulseHook, on the other hand, cares about the actual result. If your script reports "failure", PulseHook marks it as Failed and sends an alert. This distinction is critical when the success or failure of the job itself is what truly matters. Integrated error logging: PulseHook’s standout feature is the details field. You can send Python exceptions or script error messages directly to the API. These errors are then displayed in the job history and included in alerts, turning your monitoring system into a first‑level debugging tool—so you don’t have to immediately dig through server logs. A dashboard built as a tool: While Healthchecks provides a functional dashboard, PulseHook takes it further. The dashboard is designed as an interactive workspace where you can view the history and status of your jobs, not just a list of checks.