Exactly ... tired by all the marketing hyperbole talk. Just show what your product does in a simple example / showcase. If it's good, people will like it. You can save yourself a lot of text copy and user time that way.
The problem is that when it comes to (commercial) developer tools and services, everyone can/wants to be everything, so why let a simple statement or a showcase limit you? "Hey, we are a container scanning service... But we can also be a container registry too, a CI, a KeyValue store, an agent sandbox provider, git hosting? We can do quick dev deployments/preview too. Want a private npm registry? Automated pull request reviews? Code Signing service? We are working on a new text editor btw"
I feel like these types of pages are less geared towards actual users of the product and more towards the investors who love the vague and flowery language. We're no longer in a world where the path to profitability was the objective goal anyway, it makes sense to me that the marketing of software is becoming decreasingly detached from reality..
It's almost like an extension of the "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" idea. If you're assessing a tool like this and the marketing isn't even trying to communicate to you, the user, what the product does, aren't you also kind of "the product" in this case too?
Seems they install a Git hook or something that executes on commit and saves your chatbot logs associated with the commit hash. This is expected to somehow improve on the issue that people are synthesising much more code than they could read and understand, and make it easier to pass along a bigger context next time you query your chatbots, supposedly to stop them from repeating "mistakes" that have already wasted your time.
What it does? Imagine a multi line commit message.
Yes yes a Dropbox comment. But the problem here is 1 million people are doing the same thing. For this to be worth 60M seed I suspect they need to do something more than you can achieve by messing around locally."
"Claude build me a script in bash to implement a Ralph loop with a KV store tied to my git commits for agent memory."
Essentially all software is augmented with agentic development now, or if not, built with technology or on platforms that is
It's like complaining about the availability of the printing press because it proliferated tabloid production, while preferring beautifully hand-crafted tomes. It's reactively trendy to hate on it because of the vulgar production it enables and to elevate the artisanal extremes that escape its apparent influence
What part of Voyager I and Voyager II are "augmented with agentic development?"
Surely if all software is augmented with agentic development now, our most important space probes have had their software augmented too, right?
What about my blog that I serve static pages on? What about the xray machine my dentist uses? What about the firmware in my toaster? Does the New York Stock Exchange use AI to action stock trades? What about my telescope's ACSOM driver?
Outside of simply not being true, the sentiment of what you're saying isn't much different than:
"Essentially all software is augmented with Stack Overflow now, or if not, built with technology or on platforms that is."
Agentic development isn't a panacea nor as widespread as you claim. I'd wager that the vast majority of developers treat AI is a more specified search engine to point them in the direction they're looking for.
AI hallucination is still as massive problem. Can't tell you the number of times I've used agentic prompting with a top model that writes code for a package based on the wrong version number or flat out invents functionality that doesn't exist.
It's really not as integral as you make it sound. If I make one PR on a widely used open source tool with a small fix, is most software development augmented by me?
The AI fatigue is real, and the cooling-off period is going to hurt. We’re deep into concept overload now. Every week it’s another tool (don’t get me started on Gas Town) confidently claiming to solve… something. “Faster development”, apparently.
Unless you’re already ideologically committed to this space, I don’t see how the average engineer has the energy or motivation to even understand these tools, never mind meaningfully compare them. That’s before you factor in that many of them actively remove the parts of engineering people enjoy, while piling on yet another layer of abstraction, configuration, and cognitive load.
I’m so tired of being told we’re in yet another “paradigm shift”. Tools like Codex can be useful in small doses, but the moment it turns into a sprawling ecosystem of prompts, agents, workflows, and magical thinking, it stops feeling like leverage and starts feeling like self-inflicted complexity.
Your point about the overwhelming proliferation of AI tools and not knowing which are worth any attention and which are trash is very true I feel that a lot today (my solution is basically to just lean into one or two and ask for recommendations on other tools with mixed success).
The “I’m so tired of being told we’re in another paradigm shift” comments are widely heard and upvoted on HN and are just so hard to comprehend today. They are not seeing the writing on the wall and following where the ball is going to be even in 6-12 months. We have scaling laws, multiple METR benchmarks, internal and external evals of a variety of flavors.
“Tools like codex can be useful in small doses” the best and most prestigious engineers I know inside and outside my company do not code virtually at all. I’m not one of them but I also do not code at all whatsoever. Agents are sufficiently powerful to justify and explain themselves and walk you through as much of the code as you want them to.
We went from having new JavaScript frameworks every week to having new AI frameworks every week. I'm thinking I should build a HN clone that filters out all posts about AI topics...
Looking at the most popular agent skills, heavily geared towards react and JS, I think a lot of the most breathless reports of LLM success are weighted towards the same group of fashion-dependant JavaScript developers.
The same very online group endlessly hyping messy techs and frontend JS frameworks, oblivious to the Facebook and Google sized mechanics driving said frameworks, are now 100x-ing themselves with things like “specs” and “tests” and dreaming big about type systems and compilers we’ve had for decades.
I don’t wanna say this cycle is us watching Node jockies discover systems programming in slow motion through LLMs, but it feels like that sometimes.
I've long wished for a 'filter' feature for the hn feed -- namely the old trend of web3 slop -- but with little else than keywords to filter, it would likely be tedious and inaccurate. Ironically, I think with AI/LLMs it could be a little easier to analyze.
This is how software is being written now. What you propose is like joining a forum called "Small-Scale Manufacturing News" and filtering out all 3D-printing articles.
Is this the product? I don't want to jump on the detractor wagon, but I read the post and watched the video, and all I gathered is that it dumps the context into the commit. I already do this.
I have it (claude, codex) summarise what we've discussed about a design, big change, put it in an MD file and then I correct it, have it re-read it and then do the change.
Then later if it goes off piste in another session tell it to re-read the ADDs for x, y and z.
If someone could make that process less clunky, that would be great. However it's very much not just funnel every turd uttered in the prompt onto a git branch and trying a chug the lot down every session.
Huh, the checkpoint primitive is something that I've been thinking about for a while, excited to see how it's implemented in the CLI. Git-compatible structures seem to be a pretty big pull whenever they're talking about context management.
> Spec-driven development is becoming the primary driver of code generation.
This sounds like my current "phase" of AI coding. I have had so many project ideas for years that I can just spec out, everything I've thought about, all the little ideas and details, things I only had time to think about, never implement. I then feed it to Claude, and watch it meet my every specification, I can then test it, note any bugs, recompile and re-test. I can review the code, as you would a Junior you're mentoring, and have it rewrite it in a specific pattern.
Funnily enough, I love Beads, but did not like that it uses git hooks for the DB, and I can't tie tickets back to ticketing systems, so I've been building my own alternative, mine just syncs to and from github issues. I think this is probably overkill for whats been a solved thing: ticketing systems.
I am going lower level - every individual work item is a "task.md" file, starts initially as a user ask, then add planning, and then the agent checks gates "[ ]" on each subtask as it works through it. In the end the task files remain part of the project, documenting work done. I also keep an up to date mind map for the whole project to speed up start time.
And I use git hooks on the tool event to print the current open gate (subtask) from task.md so the agent never deviates from the plan, this is important if you use yolo mode. It might be an original technique I never heard anyone using it. A stickie note in the tool response, printed by a hook, that highlights the current task and where is the current task.md located. I have seen stretches of 10 or 15 minutes of good work done this way with no user intervention. Like a "Markdown Turing Machine".
That's hilarious, I called it gates too for my reimplementation of Beads. Still working on it a bit, but this is the one I built out a month back, got it into git a week ago.
For me a gate is: a dependency that must pass before a task is closed. It could be human verification, unit testing, or even "can I curl this?" "can I build this?" and gates can be re-used, but every task MUST have one gate.
My issue with git hooks integration at that level is and I know this sounds crazy, but not everyone is using git. I run into legacy projects, or maybe its still greenfield as heck, and all you have is a POC zip file your manager emailed you for whatever awful reason. I like my tooling to be agnostic to models and external tooling so it can easily integrate everywhere.
Yours sounds pretty awesome for what its worth, just not for me, wish you the best of luck.
Me too. I've been using spec-kitty [0], a fork of Spec Kit. Quite amazing how a short interview on an idea can produce full documents of requirements, specs, tasks, etc. After a few AI projects, this is my first time using spec driven development, and it is definitely an improvement.
I had a similar, admitted poorly thought out idea a few months back.
I wanted to more or less build Jira for agents and track the context there.
If I had to guess 60 million is just enough to build the POC out. I don't see how this can compete though, Open AI or Anthro could easily spin up a competitor internally.
The context preservation problem is genuinely painful - I've been using task.md files and CLAUDE.md conventions to maintain agent state across sessions, and it's duct tape at best. First-class "checkpoints" that capture reasoning alongside diffs is an appealing idea.
But I'm skeptical of building this as a separate platform rather than as tooling on top of git. The most useful AI dev workflow improvements I've seen (cursor rules, aider conventions, claude hooks) all succeeded precisely because they stayed close to existing tools. The moment you ask developers to switch their entire SDLC stack, adoption becomes the real engineering challenge - not the tech.
Curious whether the open source commitment means the checkpoint format itself will be an open spec that other tools can build on.
The CLI is open source, everyone can use it and it does work with git only. So, no separate platform needed. The platform only provides convenience to view checkpoints at the moment. However you can also view them in the CLI. It's here https://github.com/entireio/cli
Actually interesting, but how's that different from just putting your learning / decision context into the normal commit text (body) ? An LLM can search that too, and doesn't require a new cli tool.
EDIT: Or just keep a proper (technical) changelog.txt file in the repo. A lot of the "agentic/LLM engineering frameworks" boil down to best approaches and proper standards the industry should have been following decades ago.
After I have an ai dona task, I ask the next one to look at that plan and git diff and so ble check validate
I don't see the need for a full platform that is separate from where my code already lives. If I'm migrating away, it's to something like tangled, not another VC funded company
Interesting to see this space maturing. One thing I notice is that most AI agent platforms focus on developer productivity and enterprise workflows, but there is a huge underserved market for personal AI agents that maintain long-term memory and context. I have been working on exactly that for Telegram (https://t.me/adola2048_bot) and the retention numbers when you give users an AI that actually remembers them are striking compared to stateless chatbots. The agent framework here looks solid but I wonder how they handle persistent user context across sessions.
This is a good idea but I feel like you could get something similar by just adding an instruction for the agent to summarize the context for the commit into a .context/commit/<sha> file as a git hook.
Exactly. I don't want to wade through a whole session log just to get to reasoning, and more importantly, I don't want to taint my current agent context with a bunch of old context.
Context management is still an important human skill in working with an agent, and this makes it harder.
Checkpoints sounds like an interesting idea, and one I think we'll benefit from if they can make it useful.
I tried a similar(-ish) thing last year at https://github.com/imjasonh/cnotes (a Claude hook to write conversations to git notes) but ended up not getting much out of it. Making it integrated into the experience would have helped, I had a chrome extension to display it in the GitHub UI but even then just stopped using it eventually.
disclosure: i run a startup that will most likely be competitive in the future.
I welcome more innovation in the code forge space but if you’re looking for an oss alternative just for tracking agent sessions with your commits you should checkout agentblame
Did you have to choose an adjective to name your product. Now it’s going to be very confusing for search engines and LLms.
“Tell me more about entire.”
“Entire what?”
“You know, that entire thing.”
love the shout but git-ai is decidedly not trying to replace the SCMs. there are teams building code review tools (commercial and internal) on top of the standard and I don't think it'll be long before GitHub, GitLab and the usual suspects start supporting it since folks the community have already been hacking it into Chrome extensions - this one got play on HN last week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46871473
This feels a bit like when some Hubbers broke off to work on PlanetScale, except without the massively successful, proven-to-be-scalable open source tool to build off (Vitess).
If you're approaching this problem-space from the ground up, there are just so many fundamental problems to solve that it seems to me that no amount of money or quality of team can increase your likelihood of arriving at enough right answers to ensure success. Pulling off something like this vision in the current red-ocean market would require dozens of brilliant ideas and hundreds of correct bets.
The founder has only forked repositories on GitHub that are sort of light web development related.
His use of bombastic language in this announcement suggests that he has never personally worked on serious software. The deterioration of GitHub under his tenure is not confidence inspiring either, but that of course may have been dictated by Nadella.
If you are very generous, this is just another GitHub competitor dressed up in AI B.S. in order to get funding.
Founder here. I built commercial insurance software for Windows 95 in the 1990s, driver assistant systems at Mercedes and at Bosch in the early 2000s, dozens of iPhone apps as contractor, a startup called HockeyApp (acquired by Microsoft), and various smaller projects, mostly in Ruby on Rails. And of course, when I left Microsoft & GitHub, 10 years of green boxes were removed from my GitHub profile.
Just have a data lake with annotated agent sessions and tool blobs (you should already be keeping this stuff for evals), then give your agent the ability to query it. No need for a special platform, or SaaS.
As for SDLC, you can do some good automations if you're very opinionated, but people have diverse tastes in the way they want to work, so it becomes a market selection thing.
$60M seed to wrap git hooks in YAML config. The AI tooling bubble is just VCs subsidizing solutions looking for problems while developers want less complexity, not more.
I am already overloaded with information (generated by AI and humans) on my day to day job, why do I need this additional context, unless company I work for just wants to spend more money to store more slop?
How is it different than reversing it, given a PR -> generate prompt based on business context relevant to the repo or mentioned issues -> preserve it as part of PR description
I barely look at git commit history, why should I look for even higher cardinality data, in this case: WTF, are you doing, idiot, I said don't change the logic to make tests pass, I said properly write tests!
I'm interested to see if they will try to tackle the segregation of human vs AI code.
The downside of agents is that they make too much changes to review, I prefer being able to track which changes I wrote or validated from the code the AI wrote.
For people trying to understand the product (so far), it seems that entire is essentially an implementation of the idea documented by http://agent-trace.dev.
New agent framework / platform every week now. It's crazy how fast things move...just when you get comfortable with an AI flow something new comes out...
I don't see how we need a brand new paradigm just because LLMs evidently suck at sharing context in their Git commits. The rules for good commits still apply in The New Age. Git is still good enough, LLMs (i.e. their developer handlers) just need to leverage it.
Personally, I don't let LLMs commit directly. I git add -p and write my own commit messages -- with additional context where required -- because at the end of the day, I'm responsible for the code. If something's unclear or lacks context, it's my fault, not the robot's.
But I would like to see a better GitHub, so maybe they will end up there.
Which only reinforces someone just lit $60M on fire. It's trivial to do this and there are so many ways people do things, having the AI build custom for you is better than paying some VC funded platform to build something for the average
I really hate this trend of naming companies using dictionary words just because they can afford to spend cash on the domain name instead of engineering. Render, fly, modal, entire and so on.
Really struggling to figure out what this is at a glance. Buried in the text is this line which I think is the tl;dr:
"As a result, every change can now be traced back not only to a diff, but to the reasoning that produced it."
This is a good idea, but I just don't see how you build an entire platform around this. This feels like a feature that should be added to GitHub. Something to see in the existing PR workflow. Why do I want to go to a separate developer platform to look at this information?
I'm sure i'm missing something but can you not ask the llm to add the reasoning behind the commit in the comments as part of the general llm instructions?
Oh man I'm tired. This reminds me of the docker era. It's all moving fast. Everyone's raising money. And 24 months from now it's all consolidating. It's all a nice hype game when you raise the funding but the execution depends on people finding value in your products and tools. I would argue yes many of these things are useful but I'd also argue there's far too much overlap, too many unknowns and too many people trying to reinvent the whole process. And just like the container era I think we're going to see a real race to zero. Where most of the dev tools get open sourced and only a handful of product companies survive, if that. I want to wish everyone the best of luck because I myself have raised money and spent countless years building Dev tools. This is no easy task especially as the landscape is changing. I just think when you raise $60m and announce a cli. You're already dead, you just don't know it. I'm sorry.
I see the value since I built a similar tool different approach. Then there's Beads, which is what inspired my project, with some tens of thousands of developers using it or more now? I'm not sure how they figure how many users they have.
In my case I don't want my tools to assume git, my tools should work whether I open SVN, TFS, Git, or a zip file. It should also sync back into my 'human' tooling, which is what I do currently. Still working on it, but its also free, just like Beads.
I wouldn't wanna be in the rat race myself, but I know people who salivate at the opportunity to create some popular dev tool to get acquired by MS, Google or Amazon or whichever of the big tech companies that decide this could work well in their cloud ecosystem.
On the one hand they think these things provide 1337x productivity gains, can be run autonomously, and will one day lead to "the first 1 person billion dollar company".
And in complete cognitive dissonance also somehow still have fantasies of future 'acquisition' by their oppressors.
Why acquire your trash dev tool?
They'll just have the agents copy it. Hell, you could even outright steal it, because apparently laundering any licensing issues through LLMs short circuits the brains of judges to protohuman clacking rocks together levels.
With 60 million you could have waited for a bigger announcement? There's "AI fatigue" among the target market for these sorts of tools, advertising unfinished products will take its toll on you later.
What's the long-term or even short-term strategy to make money?
It's not like $60m in funding was given as charity.
> The game has changed. The system is cracking.
Just say what your thing does. Or, better yet, show it to me in under 60 seconds.
Web sites are the new banner ads and headings like that are the new `<blink>`.
> Web sites are the new banner ads and headings like that are the new `<blink>`.
It's been like this since the Dotcom era
Or did you forget that you can do anything at zombo.com?
It appears to be rather slow today, but here's a Wiki link for the uninitiated- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombo.com
[delayed]
Exactly ... tired by all the marketing hyperbole talk. Just show what your product does in a simple example / showcase. If it's good, people will like it. You can save yourself a lot of text copy and user time that way.
They'll learn soon enough that selling to developers necessitates speaking clearly.
Dohmke never spoke clearly to developers when he was GitHub's CEO.
They will sell to their managers
No. With this kind of bullshit they plan to try to sell to C-levels and board members.
Edit: Actually it may just be aimed at investors. Who cares about having a product?
> Actually it may just be aimed at investors
The fact that the first image you see has "$60M seed" in big text, I have to agree, this does not feel aimed at devs.
The problem is that when it comes to (commercial) developer tools and services, everyone can/wants to be everything, so why let a simple statement or a showcase limit you? "Hey, we are a container scanning service... But we can also be a container registry too, a CI, a KeyValue store, an agent sandbox provider, git hosting? We can do quick dev deployments/preview too. Want a private npm registry? Automated pull request reviews? Code Signing service? We are working on a new text editor btw"
I feel like these types of pages are less geared towards actual users of the product and more towards the investors who love the vague and flowery language. We're no longer in a world where the path to profitability was the objective goal anyway, it makes sense to me that the marketing of software is becoming decreasingly detached from reality..
It's almost like an extension of the "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" idea. If you're assessing a tool like this and the marketing isn't even trying to communicate to you, the user, what the product does, aren't you also kind of "the product" in this case too?
But what if my product is just an attempt to make a cushy exit during the AI bubble?
Its like a modern day redux of zombo com.
They also seem bothered by color photography in 2026. All style, no substance.
I couldn’t figure out what they were doing in the first few screens of scrolling. Moved on.
Seems they install a Git hook or something that executes on commit and saves your chatbot logs associated with the commit hash. This is expected to somehow improve on the issue that people are synthesising much more code than they could read and understand, and make it easier to pass along a bigger context next time you query your chatbots, supposedly to stop them from repeating "mistakes" that have already wasted your time.
You need to use AI to summarize the point of articles about AI products
What it does? Imagine a multi line commit message.
Yes yes a Dropbox comment. But the problem here is 1 million people are doing the same thing. For this to be worth 60M seed I suspect they need to do something more than you can achieve by messing around locally."
"Claude build me a script in bash to implement a Ralph loop with a KV store tied to my git commits for agent memory."
It is not the system that is on crack ...
I miss the good old days:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=338286
Either the models are good and this sort of platform gets swept away, or they aren’t, and this sort of platform gets swept away.
I am not willing to share my sheepish prompts with my team. Sorry!
Think of all of the habit tracker and to do list apps we'll be able to make now!
With openclaw we won't need to make event those apps.
Essentially all software is augmented with agentic development now, or if not, built with technology or on platforms that is
It's like complaining about the availability of the printing press because it proliferated tabloid production, while preferring beautifully hand-crafted tomes. It's reactively trendy to hate on it because of the vulgar production it enables and to elevate the artisanal extremes that escape its apparent influence
What part of Voyager I and Voyager II are "augmented with agentic development?"
Surely if all software is augmented with agentic development now, our most important space probes have had their software augmented too, right?
What about my blog that I serve static pages on? What about the xray machine my dentist uses? What about the firmware in my toaster? Does the New York Stock Exchange use AI to action stock trades? What about my telescope's ACSOM driver?
Outside of simply not being true, the sentiment of what you're saying isn't much different than:
"Essentially all software is augmented with Stack Overflow now, or if not, built with technology or on platforms that is."
Agentic development isn't a panacea nor as widespread as you claim. I'd wager that the vast majority of developers treat AI is a more specified search engine to point them in the direction they're looking for.
AI hallucination is still as massive problem. Can't tell you the number of times I've used agentic prompting with a top model that writes code for a package based on the wrong version number or flat out invents functionality that doesn't exist.
It's really not as integral as you make it sound. If I make one PR on a widely used open source tool with a small fix, is most software development augmented by me?
Christ, a $60m seed round.
The AI fatigue is real, and the cooling-off period is going to hurt. We’re deep into concept overload now. Every week it’s another tool (don’t get me started on Gas Town) confidently claiming to solve… something. “Faster development”, apparently.
Unless you’re already ideologically committed to this space, I don’t see how the average engineer has the energy or motivation to even understand these tools, never mind meaningfully compare them. That’s before you factor in that many of them actively remove the parts of engineering people enjoy, while piling on yet another layer of abstraction, configuration, and cognitive load.
I’m so tired of being told we’re in yet another “paradigm shift”. Tools like Codex can be useful in small doses, but the moment it turns into a sprawling ecosystem of prompts, agents, workflows, and magical thinking, it stops feeling like leverage and starts feeling like self-inflicted complexity.
Your point about the overwhelming proliferation of AI tools and not knowing which are worth any attention and which are trash is very true I feel that a lot today (my solution is basically to just lean into one or two and ask for recommendations on other tools with mixed success).
The “I’m so tired of being told we’re in another paradigm shift” comments are widely heard and upvoted on HN and are just so hard to comprehend today. They are not seeing the writing on the wall and following where the ball is going to be even in 6-12 months. We have scaling laws, multiple METR benchmarks, internal and external evals of a variety of flavors.
“Tools like codex can be useful in small doses” the best and most prestigious engineers I know inside and outside my company do not code virtually at all. I’m not one of them but I also do not code at all whatsoever. Agents are sufficiently powerful to justify and explain themselves and walk you through as much of the code as you want them to.
Maybe just learning 1 or 2 of such tools is enough ?
Probably, but which ones, do we get to a place where you have X years experience in Gastown development, but I only have Y years experience in Entire.
I also keep getting job applications for AI-native 'developers' whatever that means.
You will learn a lot about the underlying LLM / technology whichever tool you use though
We went from having new JavaScript frameworks every week to having new AI frameworks every week. I'm thinking I should build a HN clone that filters out all posts about AI topics...
Looking at the most popular agent skills, heavily geared towards react and JS, I think a lot of the most breathless reports of LLM success are weighted towards the same group of fashion-dependant JavaScript developers.
The same very online group endlessly hyping messy techs and frontend JS frameworks, oblivious to the Facebook and Google sized mechanics driving said frameworks, are now 100x-ing themselves with things like “specs” and “tests” and dreaming big about type systems and compilers we’ve had for decades.
I don’t wanna say this cycle is us watching Node jockies discover systems programming in slow motion through LLMs, but it feels like that sometimes.
Create extension that does that. AI can do that for you in 10 minutes
You know the only effective way to do that, right?
Claude create a clone of Hacker News, no mistakes. Must compile.
I've long wished for a 'filter' feature for the hn feed -- namely the old trend of web3 slop -- but with little else than keywords to filter, it would likely be tedious and inaccurate. Ironically, I think with AI/LLMs it could be a little easier to analyze.
one technique i've found useful is i don't click on the link if i'm not interested.
It’s one reason I hoped lobste.rs had taken off. All posts are tagged and you can filter out by tag.
This is how software is being written now. What you propose is like joining a forum called "Small-Scale Manufacturing News" and filtering out all 3D-printing articles.
We want to filter out the irrelevant software :)
>CLI to tie agent context into Git on every push.
Is this the product? I don't want to jump on the detractor wagon, but I read the post and watched the video, and all I gathered is that it dumps the context into the commit. I already do this.
Isnt this overloading git commits too much ? Like 50kb per commit message
Same thought. If anything I'm usually trying to find ways to reduce how much context is carried over.
I have it (claude, codex) summarise what we've discussed about a design, big change, put it in an MD file and then I correct it, have it re-read it and then do the change.
Then later if it goes off piste in another session tell it to re-read the ADDs for x, y and z.
If someone could make that process less clunky, that would be great. However it's very much not just funnel every turd uttered in the prompt onto a git branch and trying a chug the lot down every session.
Entire.io, the name is on point considering it asks for access to my entire GitHub account.
But seriously, $300M valuation for a CLI tool that adds some metadata to Git commits. I don't know what to say.
Huh, the checkpoint primitive is something that I've been thinking about for a while, excited to see how it's implemented in the CLI. Git-compatible structures seem to be a pretty big pull whenever they're talking about context management.
> Spec-driven development is becoming the primary driver of code generation.
This sounds like my current "phase" of AI coding. I have had so many project ideas for years that I can just spec out, everything I've thought about, all the little ideas and details, things I only had time to think about, never implement. I then feed it to Claude, and watch it meet my every specification, I can then test it, note any bugs, recompile and re-test. I can review the code, as you would a Junior you're mentoring, and have it rewrite it in a specific pattern.
Funnily enough, I love Beads, but did not like that it uses git hooks for the DB, and I can't tie tickets back to ticketing systems, so I've been building my own alternative, mine just syncs to and from github issues. I think this is probably overkill for whats been a solved thing: ticketing systems.
I am going lower level - every individual work item is a "task.md" file, starts initially as a user ask, then add planning, and then the agent checks gates "[ ]" on each subtask as it works through it. In the end the task files remain part of the project, documenting work done. I also keep an up to date mind map for the whole project to speed up start time.
And I use git hooks on the tool event to print the current open gate (subtask) from task.md so the agent never deviates from the plan, this is important if you use yolo mode. It might be an original technique I never heard anyone using it. A stickie note in the tool response, printed by a hook, that highlights the current task and where is the current task.md located. I have seen stretches of 10 or 15 minutes of good work done this way with no user intervention. Like a "Markdown Turing Machine".
That's hilarious, I called it gates too for my reimplementation of Beads. Still working on it a bit, but this is the one I built out a month back, got it into git a week ago.
For me a gate is: a dependency that must pass before a task is closed. It could be human verification, unit testing, or even "can I curl this?" "can I build this?" and gates can be re-used, but every task MUST have one gate.
My issue with git hooks integration at that level is and I know this sounds crazy, but not everyone is using git. I run into legacy projects, or maybe its still greenfield as heck, and all you have is a POC zip file your manager emailed you for whatever awful reason. I like my tooling to be agnostic to models and external tooling so it can easily integrate everywhere.
Yours sounds pretty awesome for what its worth, just not for me, wish you the best of luck.
https://github.com/Giancarlos/GuardRails
This is built in to Claude Code, when you're in plan mode it makes a task MD file, even giving it a random name and storing it in your .claude folder.
I'm confused how this is any different to the pretty standard agentic coding workflow?
Me too. I've been using spec-kitty [0], a fork of Spec Kit. Quite amazing how a short interview on an idea can produce full documents of requirements, specs, tasks, etc. After a few AI projects, this is my first time using spec driven development, and it is definitely an improvement.
[0]: https://github.com/Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty
I had a similar, admitted poorly thought out idea a few months back.
I wanted to more or less build Jira for agents and track the context there.
If I had to guess 60 million is just enough to build the POC out. I don't see how this can compete though, Open AI or Anthro could easily spin up a competitor internally.
Isn't that basically what things like this are for, open source, free.... https://github.com/steveyegge/beads
Shouldn't this tool be agnostic to the models? Seems like a 3rd party is the way to go.
The context preservation problem is genuinely painful - I've been using task.md files and CLAUDE.md conventions to maintain agent state across sessions, and it's duct tape at best. First-class "checkpoints" that capture reasoning alongside diffs is an appealing idea.
But I'm skeptical of building this as a separate platform rather than as tooling on top of git. The most useful AI dev workflow improvements I've seen (cursor rules, aider conventions, claude hooks) all succeeded precisely because they stayed close to existing tools. The moment you ask developers to switch their entire SDLC stack, adoption becomes the real engineering challenge - not the tech.
Curious whether the open source commitment means the checkpoint format itself will be an open spec that other tools can build on.
The CLI is open source, everyone can use it and it does work with git only. So, no separate platform needed. The platform only provides convenience to view checkpoints at the moment. However you can also view them in the CLI. It's here https://github.com/entireio/cli
Actually interesting, but how's that different from just putting your learning / decision context into the normal commit text (body) ? An LLM can search that too, and doesn't require a new cli tool.
EDIT: Or just keep a proper (technical) changelog.txt file in the repo. A lot of the "agentic/LLM engineering frameworks" boil down to best approaches and proper standards the industry should have been following decades ago.
After I have an ai dona task, I ask the next one to look at that plan and git diff and so ble check validate
I don't see the need for a full platform that is separate from where my code already lives. If I'm migrating away, it's to something like tangled, not another VC funded company
This guy was the ex-ceo of GitHub and can't bother to communicate his product in a single announcement post?
I saw him speak at a conference a couple of years ago. He couldn't communicate back then either, so at least he's consistent.
I am here. What did I not bother with? I wrote the blog post and it has all the details.
I am struggling to see what the details are other than high-level concepts. Perhaps a demo would be useful!
Wow, account from 2011 and just two comments, both on this article. Welcome, lurker, and good luck :)
Thanks. New startup, new approach.
Interesting to see this space maturing. One thing I notice is that most AI agent platforms focus on developer productivity and enterprise workflows, but there is a huge underserved market for personal AI agents that maintain long-term memory and context. I have been working on exactly that for Telegram (https://t.me/adola2048_bot) and the retention numbers when you give users an AI that actually remembers them are striking compared to stateless chatbots. The agent framework here looks solid but I wonder how they handle persistent user context across sessions.
I’m manually checking in Agent.md for every commit to improve the context window usage. Is that now automated?
you're doing what now?
This is a good idea but I feel like you could get something similar by just adding an instruction for the agent to summarize the context for the commit into a .context/commit/<sha> file as a git hook.
Or git notes.
Commit hook > Background agent summarizes (in a data structure) the work that went into the commit > saves to a note
Built similar (with a better name) a week ago at a hackathon: https://github.com/eqtylab/y
Exactly. I don't want to wade through a whole session log just to get to reasoning, and more importantly, I don't want to taint my current agent context with a bunch of old context.
Context management is still an important human skill in working with an agent, and this makes it harder.
"$60M Seed round"
I guess when you are Ex-Github CEO, it is that easy raising a $60M seed. I wonder what the record for a seed round is. This is crazy.
Checkpoints sounds like an interesting idea, and one I think we'll benefit from if they can make it useful.
I tried a similar(-ish) thing last year at https://github.com/imjasonh/cnotes (a Claude hook to write conversations to git notes) but ended up not getting much out of it. Making it integrated into the experience would have helped, I had a chrome extension to display it in the GitHub UI but even then just stopped using it eventually.
Ah you were 7mo ahead of me doing the same and also coming to a similar conclusion. The idea holds value but in practice it isnt felt.
https://github.com/eqtylab/y
Highly dubious of this.
I see zero reason for a person to care about the checkpoints.
And for agents, full sessions just needlessly fill context.
So not sure what is being solved by this.
Really hope that unlike GitHub it'll be open source
With a 60M seed? I doubt it.
disclosure: i run a startup that will most likely be competitive in the future.
I welcome more innovation in the code forge space but if you’re looking for an oss alternative just for tracking agent sessions with your commits you should checkout agentblame
https://github.com/mesa-dot-dev/agentblame
Entire CEO here. We are going to be building in the open and full stack open source, but great to see alternatives.
Did you have to choose an adjective to name your product. Now it’s going to be very confusing for search engines and LLms. “Tell me more about entire.” “Entire what?” “You know, that entire thing.”
There is also Git AI: https://github.com/git-ai-project/git-ai https://usegitai.com/
love the shout but git-ai is decidedly not trying to replace the SCMs. there are teams building code review tools (commercial and internal) on top of the standard and I don't think it'll be long before GitHub, GitLab and the usual suspects start supporting it since folks the community have already been hacking it into Chrome extensions - this one got play on HN last week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46871473
My first thought that it was made for companies which tie "AI usage" to performance evaluation.
This feels a bit like when some Hubbers broke off to work on PlanetScale, except without the massively successful, proven-to-be-scalable open source tool to build off (Vitess).
If you're approaching this problem-space from the ground up, there are just so many fundamental problems to solve that it seems to me that no amount of money or quality of team can increase your likelihood of arriving at enough right answers to ensure success. Pulling off something like this vision in the current red-ocean market would require dozens of brilliant ideas and hundreds of correct bets.
The founder has only forked repositories on GitHub that are sort of light web development related.
His use of bombastic language in this announcement suggests that he has never personally worked on serious software. The deterioration of GitHub under his tenure is not confidence inspiring either, but that of course may have been dictated by Nadella.
If you are very generous, this is just another GitHub competitor dressed up in AI B.S. in order to get funding.
Founder here. I built commercial insurance software for Windows 95 in the 1990s, driver assistant systems at Mercedes and at Bosch in the early 2000s, dozens of iPhone apps as contractor, a startup called HockeyApp (acquired by Microsoft), and various smaller projects, mostly in Ruby on Rails. And of course, when I left Microsoft & GitHub, 10 years of green boxes were removed from my GitHub profile.
Just have a data lake with annotated agent sessions and tool blobs (you should already be keeping this stuff for evals), then give your agent the ability to query it. No need for a special platform, or SaaS.
As for SDLC, you can do some good automations if you're very opinionated, but people have diverse tastes in the way they want to work, so it becomes a market selection thing.
This is the way
$60M seed to wrap git hooks in YAML config. The AI tooling bubble is just VCs subsidizing solutions looking for problems while developers want less complexity, not more.
Can someone please explain what is this?
I am already overloaded with information (generated by AI and humans) on my day to day job, why do I need this additional context, unless company I work for just wants to spend more money to store more slop?
How is it different than reversing it, given a PR -> generate prompt based on business context relevant to the repo or mentioned issues -> preserve it as part of PR description
I barely look at git commit history, why should I look for even higher cardinality data, in this case: WTF, are you doing, idiot, I said don't change the logic to make tests pass, I said properly write tests!
I'm interested to see if they will try to tackle the segregation of human vs AI code. The downside of agents is that they make too much changes to review, I prefer being able to track which changes I wrote or validated from the code the AI wrote.
Its a shame Pierre shut down. Wish they could have made it work. Github but made by Linear would be a dream.
Pierre didn't shutdown, they said they just paused signups on the code review app to focus on the code storage service.
Productizing the building blocks of the platform seems like the smart play in today's environment honestly.
Sure but I dont want to build my own Github I just want to use a beautiful and faster alternative
We’re shooting for this with Tangled (https://tangled.org). :)
For people trying to understand the product (so far), it seems that entire is essentially an implementation of the idea documented by http://agent-trace.dev.
> Cursor's Composer 2.0
There is no Composer 2.0. There is Cursor 2.0 and Composer 1.5.
I don't want agent context tied to git commits. I just want infinite scroll in Claude Code and ability to search and review all my past conversations!
There have been so many GitHub CEOs I was excited to find out which one.
Only four: Chris, Tom, Nat, and Thomas. Last one is me. ;)
PJ was technically CEO for awhile when they needed someone to do it
New agent framework / platform every week now. It's crazy how fast things move...just when you get comfortable with an AI flow something new comes out...
> ... to Cursor's Composer 2.0 and more, ...
I couldn't find any references of Composer 2.0 anywhere. When did that come out?
1.5 released yesterday. probably just slop
- https://cursor.com/blog/composer-1-5
Fixed. It's Cursor 2.0 and Composer 1.5, mixed that up when editing the post last night.
I don't see how we need a brand new paradigm just because LLMs evidently suck at sharing context in their Git commits. The rules for good commits still apply in The New Age. Git is still good enough, LLMs (i.e. their developer handlers) just need to leverage it.
Personally, I don't let LLMs commit directly. I git add -p and write my own commit messages -- with additional context where required -- because at the end of the day, I'm responsible for the code. If something's unclear or lacks context, it's my fault, not the robot's.
But I would like to see a better GitHub, so maybe they will end up there.
Looking at the CLI implementation. Why not build on top of jj?
most people use git, jj has compatibility gaps
Wait, since when is Dohmke out? I thought this was gonna be Nat.
I left August 11: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/goodbye-githu...
Not sure what it is or what it does.
Uses AI to summarize coding sessions tied to commits.
Commit hook > Background agent summarizes (in a data structure) the work that went into the commit.
Built similar (with a better name) a week ago at a hackathon: https://github.com/eqtylab/y
Which only reinforces someone just lit $60M on fire. It's trivial to do this and there are so many ways people do things, having the AI build custom for you is better than paying some VC funded platform to build something for the average
Not even pocket change compared to the billions of VC money burnt every month to keep the show running.
It extracts money from investors and allocates it to founders.
Sounds very cringe
Not surprising for a $60M seed round
Do we have new words for smaller amounts or is this inflation at work?
I really hate this trend of naming companies using dictionary words just because they can afford to spend cash on the domain name instead of engineering. Render, fly, modal, entire and so on.
Grifters to the grift god
List of Github CEOs:
1. Tom Preston-Werner (Co-founder). 2008 – 2014 (Out for, eh... look it up)
2. Chris Wanstrath (Co-founder). 2014 – 2018
(2018: Acquisition by Microsoft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227286)
3. Nat Friedman (Gnome/Ximian/Microsoft). 2018 – 2021
4. Thomas Dohmke (Founder of HockeyApp, some A/B testing thing, acquired by Microsoft in 2014). 2021 - 2025
There is no Github CEO now, it's just a team/org in Microsoft. (https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/)
I thought something got seriously wrong with Nat Friedman but fortunately it's another one.
Really struggling to figure out what this is at a glance. Buried in the text is this line which I think is the tl;dr:
"As a result, every change can now be traced back not only to a diff, but to the reasoning that produced it."
This is a good idea, but I just don't see how you build an entire platform around this. This feels like a feature that should be added to GitHub. Something to see in the existing PR workflow. Why do I want to go to a separate developer platform to look at this information?
I'm sure i'm missing something but can you not ask the llm to add the reasoning behind the commit in the comments as part of the general llm instructions?
Github sucks now, for one; people are looking for an alternative.
This is not an alternative to GitHub though. The code for this tool itself lives on GitHub!
https://github.com/entireio
Oh man I'm tired. This reminds me of the docker era. It's all moving fast. Everyone's raising money. And 24 months from now it's all consolidating. It's all a nice hype game when you raise the funding but the execution depends on people finding value in your products and tools. I would argue yes many of these things are useful but I'd also argue there's far too much overlap, too many unknowns and too many people trying to reinvent the whole process. And just like the container era I think we're going to see a real race to zero. Where most of the dev tools get open sourced and only a handful of product companies survive, if that. I want to wish everyone the best of luck because I myself have raised money and spent countless years building Dev tools. This is no easy task especially as the landscape is changing. I just think when you raise $60m and announce a cli. You're already dead, you just don't know it. I'm sorry.
Let the cambrian explosion run its course but let's hope the meteorite doesn't kill us all.
I see the value since I built a similar tool different approach. Then there's Beads, which is what inspired my project, with some tens of thousands of developers using it or more now? I'm not sure how they figure how many users they have.
In my case I don't want my tools to assume git, my tools should work whether I open SVN, TFS, Git, or a zip file. It should also sync back into my 'human' tooling, which is what I do currently. Still working on it, but its also free, just like Beads.
I wouldn't wanna be in the rat race myself, but I know people who salivate at the opportunity to create some popular dev tool to get acquired by MS, Google or Amazon or whichever of the big tech companies that decide this could work well in their cloud ecosystem.
HNites are hilarious.
On the one hand they think these things provide 1337x productivity gains, can be run autonomously, and will one day lead to "the first 1 person billion dollar company".
And in complete cognitive dissonance also somehow still have fantasies of future 'acquisition' by their oppressors.
Why acquire your trash dev tool?
They'll just have the agents copy it. Hell, you could even outright steal it, because apparently laundering any licensing issues through LLMs short circuits the brains of judges to protohuman clacking rocks together levels.
What if it's just the beginning of something bigger?
What if the earth exploded tomorrow? Who cares about what if.
With 60 million you could have waited for a bigger announcement? There's "AI fatigue" among the target market for these sorts of tools, advertising unfinished products will take its toll on you later.