Challenge 3: REST Client or Thunder Client? — Possible Solution
====================================================================

REST CLIENT is the better fit here.

The requirement is specifically: reviewed in pull requests, diffable
in Git history, no proprietary export format. REST Client's .http
files are exactly that — plain text files that live directly in the
repository, show up naturally in `git diff`, and get reviewed like any
other source file in a pull request. There is no export/import step
and no proprietary file format standing between "the request" and
"what's actually in Git" — the .http file IS the request, in the same
plain text form whether you're reading it in an editor or in a PR
diff.

THUNDER CLIENT FALLS SHORT here specifically because, like Postman, it
manages collections and environments through its own GUI-driven
internal state — even though Thunder Client's data can be exported to
JSON files that CAN technically be committed, that's an extra
deliberate export step, not the tool's natural default working mode,
and the exported JSON is a serialized representation of GUI state
rather than something a reviewer would read as naturally as a plain
.http file. For a team whose stated requirement is specifically about
Git-native review and diffability, REST Client's plain-text-by-default
design matches the requirement directly, while Thunder Client would
require extra process to achieve the same result.