The graph generator looks interesting, but the rest of the blog post is filled with so much marketing it's a slog to get through to the good bits. I struggle to imagine a scenario where I willingly choose the "Trails" view even if, and god help us if it is, that's the direction PR review is going.
Hey, Haimantika here from the Entire team. Thank you for the feedback on blog, we will work on it for our future announcements.
For Trails: There’s agent sessions, gates, agents(evals basically) and checks - so it gives you all the information you need to review better (compared to the diffs for example).
Yes, I will say it's a high-AI-trust approach. I can see this being adopted by people like Anthropic who already don't read the code. Personally I'm still trying to get my company to add AI review to MRs :(
I am happy to YOLO stuff into my -dev branch unread but even for private tooling nobody else will ever use I then let things mature a little bit before extracting an explainably and clearly-scoped change to add to main. It's going to be really interesting to see how different team cultures deal with this stuff.
Rather than write an essay about why we built this, I’d rather just answer whatever you’re skeptical about. Happy to get into the actual mechanics: how sessions get attached to commits (it’s git refs, not a side db), what the 89x push number does and doesn’t mean, where the context/token savings fall apart, who can read whose session transcripts, how you’d migrate off if you hated it, whatever.
The one thing I’ll say up front: The bet is that once agents write most of the code, the PR stops being the right unit of review, because the diff is cheap and the “why” vanishes when the session ends. Everything else follows from that.
Would there have been value, pre-LLMs, in attaching a screen recording of what a developer did in the three hours before posting their diff (be it Google, stack overflow, reading a book, or trying a sandbox experiment) to their PR? The PR is a synthesis of their efforts, and it would actually be more effort to review and understand their screen recordings, wouldn't it? In my experience striving for fewer artifacts is the right move, so long as they are sufficient to describe the outcome. What exactly is lost between sessions and code that would help you debug something?
Also, if your business has agents writing most of the code, why would your business care about human reviews at all? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all. Wouldn't you be better off looping your agents into your support tickets and autofixing bugs? In that scenario, isn't it more confusing for an agent to deal with sessions + code rather than start fresh with the code?
Not GP, but pre-LLM, who's gonna go watch that footage? Unless you're Jia Tan and there's a forensic reason to scrutinize every last little thing, who's gonna watch that video?
This feels insincere coming from a venture-backed software startup. Do you have a unique ownership structure, or a particular emphasis on open-source or self-hosting?
"We founded Entire on a single belief, human developers no longer write most of the code."
This isn't a belief. What do you actually believe about the future of software?
Let me put it this way. The premise of agents is that some combination of programming languages and programming tools suck so incredibly much that humans don't want to use them.
You're effectively betting that this problem can never be fixed. AI is a layer of kludges on top of the problem of bad programming tools. Haven't you ultimately made a rather cynical bet?
For Trails: There’s agent sessions, gates, agents(evals basically) and checks - so it gives you all the information you need to review better (compared to the diffs for example).
Here’s our docs link too: https://docs.entire.com/guides/trails/overview
Here if you have additional questions!
I would happily try this out if it were going to be free for the next 1-2 years, or if I knew that the upcoming bill would be reasonable
TLDR: You only get charged for Agents. We also give you a $100 signup credit.
Rather than write an essay about why we built this, I’d rather just answer whatever you’re skeptical about. Happy to get into the actual mechanics: how sessions get attached to commits (it’s git refs, not a side db), what the 89x push number does and doesn’t mean, where the context/token savings fall apart, who can read whose session transcripts, how you’d migrate off if you hated it, whatever.
The one thing I’ll say up front: The bet is that once agents write most of the code, the PR stops being the right unit of review, because the diff is cheap and the “why” vanishes when the session ends. Everything else follows from that.
Ask away, I’ll be in the thread for a while.
Also, if your business has agents writing most of the code, why would your business care about human reviews at all? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all. Wouldn't you be better off looping your agents into your support tickets and autofixing bugs? In that scenario, isn't it more confusing for an agent to deal with sessions + code rather than start fresh with the code?
This feels insincere coming from a venture-backed software startup. Do you have a unique ownership structure, or a particular emphasis on open-source or self-hosting?
is the carrot JUST the time savings for large dev orgs?
You can read more about session storage on our docs here: https://docs.entire.com/guides/checkpoints/checkpoint-storag...
This isn't a belief. What do you actually believe about the future of software?
Let me put it this way. The premise of agents is that some combination of programming languages and programming tools suck so incredibly much that humans don't want to use them.
You're effectively betting that this problem can never be fixed. AI is a layer of kludges on top of the problem of bad programming tools. Haven't you ultimately made a rather cynical bet?