[HN Gopher] Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for ...
___________________________________________________________________
Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents
Author : meetpateltech
Score : 240 points
Date : 2026-02-10 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (entire.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (entire.io)
| peterldowns wrote:
| Its a shame Pierre shut down. Wish they could have made it work.
| Github but made by Linear would be a dream.
| gabeidx wrote:
| 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.
| peterldowns wrote:
| Sure but I dont want to build my own Github I just want to
| use a beautiful and faster alternative
| icy wrote:
| We're shooting for this with Tangled (https://tangled.org).
| :)
| andrewshawcare wrote:
| > 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>`.
| mentalgear wrote:
| 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.
| munk-a wrote:
| But what if my product is just an attempt to make a cushy
| exit during the AI bubble?
| ezekg wrote:
| They'll learn soon enough that selling to developers
| necessitates speaking clearly.
| LtWorf wrote:
| They will sell to their managers
| jeltz wrote:
| 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?
| properbrew wrote:
| > 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.
| davepeck wrote:
| Dohmke never spoke clearly to developers when he was
| GitHub's CEO.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| 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"
| CodingJeebus wrote:
| 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?
| rgxsh wrote:
| It is not the system that is on crack ...
| dmix wrote:
| You need to use AI to summarize the point of articles about AI
| products
| jtokoph wrote:
| I couldn't figure out what they were doing in the first few
| screens of scrolling. Moved on.
| cess11 wrote:
| 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.
| wellf wrote:
| 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."
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| They also seem bothered by color photography in 2026. All
| style, no substance.
| eej71 wrote:
| Its like a modern day redux of zombo com.
| layer8 wrote:
| That's a bit insulting to zombo.com.
| sho_hn wrote:
| AI is everything at zombo.com.
|
| Everything is AI at zombo.com.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| > 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
| ziml77 wrote:
| The domain expired a few days ago and was purchased by
| someone else and then changed. There's a recreation of the
| original here https://html5zombo.com/
| sph wrote:
| That's the saddest news I've heard this year.
|
| It's still around, but has been redesigned and it's under
| "new management". Further proof that the internet is dying.
| calebbushner wrote:
| Wait really?!? I'm surprised at how much that saddens me.
| What is the point of the internet without zombo com
| mentalgear wrote:
| 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.
| verdverm wrote:
| 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
| dinosor wrote:
| > ... to Cursor's Composer 2.0 and more, ...
|
| I couldn't find any references of Composer 2.0 anywhere. When did
| that come out?
| imafish wrote:
| 1.5 released yesterday. probably just slop
|
| - https://cursor.com/blog/composer-1-5
| ashtom wrote:
| Fixed. It's Cursor 2.0 and Composer 1.5, mixed that up when
| editing the post last night.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > 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.
| visarga wrote:
| 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".
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| 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
| mattmanser wrote:
| 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?
| dworks wrote:
| that's similar to the workflow i built, inspired by Recursive
| Language Models: https://github.com/doubleuuser/rlm-workflow
| samename wrote:
| 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
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Nice, I'll check yours out after work, looks pretty polished.
| wild_egg wrote:
| Task management is fundamentally straightforward and yet
| workflow specific enough that I recommend everyone just spend a
| few hours building their own tools at this point.
|
| Beads is a nightmare.
| OliverGilan wrote:
| 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
| ashtom wrote:
| Entire CEO here. We are going to be building in the open and
| full stack open source, but great to see alternatives.
| hbarka wrote:
| 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."
| nickorlow wrote:
| Think of all of the habit tracker and to do list apps we'll be
| able to make now!
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| 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
| nickorlow wrote:
| 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?
| metamet wrote:
| 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.
| aspenmartin wrote:
| I just cannot fathom how people can say something like this
| today, agentic tools have now passed an inflection point.
| People want to point out the short comings and fully ignore
| that you can now make a fully functioning iPhone app in a
| day without knowing swift or front end development? That I
| can at my company do two projects simultaneously, both of
| them done in about 1/4 the time and one would not have even
| been attempted before due to the SWE headcount you would
| have to steal. There are countless examples I have in my
| own personal projects that just are such an obvious counter
| example to the moaning "I appreciate the craft" people or
| "yea this will never work because people still have to read
| the code" (today sure and this is now made more manageable
| by good quality agents, tomorrow no. No you won't need to
| read code.)
| nickorlow wrote:
| I've found that the effort required to get a good outcome
| is roughly equal to the effort of doing it myself.
|
| If I do it myself, I get the added bonus of actually
| understanding what the code is doing, which makes
| debugging any issues down the line _way_ easier. It 's
| also in generally better for teams b/c you can ask the
| 'owner' of a part of the codebase what their intuition is
| on an issue (trying to have AI fill in for this purpose
| has been underwhelming for me so far).
|
| Trying to maintain a vibecoded codebase essentially
| involves spelunking though a non-familliar codebase every
| time manual action is needed to fix an issue (including
| reviewing/verifying the output of an AI tool's fix for
| the issue).
|
| (For small/pinpointed things, it has been very good.
| e.g.: write a python script to comb through this CSV and
| print x details about it/turn this into a dashboard)
| aspenmartin wrote:
| In sonnet 4 and even 4.5 I would have said you are
| absolutely right, and in many cases it slows you down
| especially when you don't know enough to sniff trouble.
|
| Opus 4.5 and 4.6 is where those instances have gone down,
| waaay down (though still true). Two personal projects I
| had abandoned after sonnet built a large pile of semi
| working cruft it couldn't quite reason about, opus 4.6
| does it in almost one shot.
|
| You are right about learning but consider: you can
| educate yourself along the way -- in some cases it's no
| substitute for writing the code yourself, and in many
| cases you learn a ton more because it's an excellent
| teacher and you can try out ideas to see which work best
| or get feedback on them. I feel I have learned a TON
| about the space though unlike when I code it myself I may
| not be extremely comfortable with the details. I would
| argue we are about 30% of the way to the point where it's
| not even no longer relevant it's a disservice to your
| company to be writing things yourself.
| malfist wrote:
| 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?
| aspenmartin wrote:
| You're talking about a 1970s satellite? I guess you win the
| argument?
|
| Blog: I use AI to make and blog developers are using
| agentic tools
|
| X-ray machine: again a little late here, plus if you want
| to start dragging in places that likely have a huge amount
| of beaurocracy I don't know that that's very fair
|
| Firmware in your toaster: cmon these are old basic things,
| if it's new firmware maybe? But probably not? These are not
| strong examples
|
| NYSE to action on stock trades; no they don't use AI to
| action on stock trades (that would be dumb and slow and
| horribly inefficient and non-deterministic), but may very
| well now be using AI to work on the codebase that does
|
| Let's try to find maybe more impactful examples than small
| embodied components in toasters and telescopes, 1970s era
| telescopes that are already past our solar system.
|
| The denial runs deep
| malfist wrote:
| So you admit that AI isn't in every software, and yet
| somehow I'm the one in denial?
| aspenmartin wrote:
| Im saying you're missing the point and the spirit of the
| argument. Yes, you are right, voyager doesn't use agentic
| AI! I don't even think the other examples you used are as
| agentic free as you think. They may or may not be! What's
| the point you want to make?
| rtcoms wrote:
| With openclaw we won't need to make event those apps.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| 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.
| ramoz wrote:
| 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
| jnwatson wrote:
| 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.
| imafish wrote:
| Not sure what it is or what it does.
| ramoz wrote:
| 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
| verdverm wrote:
| 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
| dust42 wrote:
| Not even pocket change compared to the billions of VC money
| burnt every month to keep the show running.
| dude250711 wrote:
| It extracts money from investors and allocates it to founders.
| sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
| This guy was the ex-ceo of GitHub and can't bother to communicate
| his product in a single announcement post?
| ashtom wrote:
| I am here. What did I not bother with? I wrote the blog post
| and it has all the details.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Wow, account from 2011 and just two comments, both on this
| article. Welcome, lurker, and good luck :)
| ashtom wrote:
| Thanks. New startup, new approach.
| sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
| I am struggling to see what the details are other than high-
| level concepts. Perhaps a demo would be useful!
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Hey, is JJ compatibility in the cards? Considering the blog
| article hints at a goal of a developerless agent-to-agent
| automation platform I'm guessing developer conveniences are a
| side quest rn?
| harladsinsteden wrote:
| 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.
| az226 wrote:
| He got fired for a reason lol.
| asim wrote:
| 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.
| dipree wrote:
| What if it's just the beginning of something bigger?
| yifanl wrote:
| What if the earth exploded tomorrow? Who cares about what if.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| 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.
| yomismoaqui wrote:
| Let the cambrian explosion run its course but let's hope the
| meteorite doesn't kill us all.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| 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.
| lopsidedfolly wrote:
| 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.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| 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.
| haute_cuisine wrote:
| My first thought that it was made for companies which tie "AI
| usage" to performance evaluation.
| FitchApps wrote:
| 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...
| ImJasonH wrote:
| 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.
| ramoz wrote:
| 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
| johnfn wrote:
| > Cursor's Composer 2.0
|
| There is no Composer 2.0. There is Cursor 2.0 and Composer 1.5.
| stack_framer wrote:
| 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...
| daliusd wrote:
| Create extension that does that. AI can do that for you in 10
| minutes
| jahsome wrote:
| 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.
| jtokoph wrote:
| It's one reason I hoped lobste.rs had taken off. All posts
| are tagged and you can filter out by tag.
| chasd00 wrote:
| one technique i've found useful is i don't click on the link
| if i'm not interested.
| bitwize wrote:
| 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| We want to filter out the irrelevant software :)
| bonesss wrote:
| 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.
| vintermann wrote:
| You know the only effective way to do that, right?
| malfist wrote:
| Claude create a clone of Hacker News, no mistakes. Must
| compile.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Just give me your bank account, claude API, Mother's maiden
| name, your zip code, your 3 digit security code, and
| anything else you think I might need to live as malfist the
| magnificant. Can I call you that?
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Or, you could perform a public service by creating a HN clone
| only for bots and try to convince the bots trolling here to go
| there.
| Kuinox wrote:
| 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.
| gen220 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.
| m-hodges wrote:
| There have been so many GitHub CEOs I was excited to find out
| which one.
| ashtom wrote:
| Only four: Chris, Tom, Nat, and Thomas. Last one is me. ;)
| milar wrote:
| PJ was technically CEO for awhile when they needed someone to
| do it
| krashidov wrote:
| There is also Git AI: https://github.com/git-ai-project/git-ai
| https://usegitai.com/
| addcn wrote:
| 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
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| 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.
| verdverm wrote:
| This is the way
| searls wrote:
| 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.
| rgxsh wrote:
| 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.
| ashtom wrote:
| 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.
| ezekg wrote:
| 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.
| raphaelmolly8 wrote:
| 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.
| dipree wrote:
| 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
| mixologic wrote:
| Doesnt the tooling already exist? i.e. you could use `git
| notes` to attach agent state as checkpoints to Trees, Commits,
| Tags etc.
| pmdr wrote:
| 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.
| codegeek wrote:
| "$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.
| jordemort wrote:
| Wait, since when is Dohmke out? I thought this was gonna be Nat.
| ashtom wrote:
| I left August 11: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-
| news/goodbye-githu...
| dcchambers wrote:
| 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?
| esafak wrote:
| Github sucks now, for one; people are looking for an
| alternative.
| dcchambers wrote:
| This is not an alternative to GitHub though. The code for
| this tool itself lives on GitHub!
|
| https://github.com/entireio
| chasd00 wrote:
| 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?
| svarlamov wrote:
| Looking at the CLI implementation. Why not build on top of jj?
| verdverm wrote:
| most people use git, jj has compatibility gaps
| throwaw12 wrote:
| 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!
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Sounds very cringe
| verdverm wrote:
| Not surprising for a $60M seed round
|
| Do we have new words for smaller amounts or is this inflation
| at work?
| sanufar wrote:
| 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.
| Fitik wrote:
| Really hope that unlike GitHub it'll be open source
| rognjen wrote:
| With a 60M seed? I doubt it.
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| Grifters to the grift god
| ontouchstart wrote:
| I miss the good old days:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=338286
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| I thought something got seriously wrong with Nat Friedman but
| fortunately it's another one.
| rognjen wrote:
| 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.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| 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.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Shouldn't this tool be agnostic to the models? Seems like a 3rd
| party is the way to go.
| taude wrote:
| Isn't that basically what things like this are for, open
| source, free.... https://github.com/steveyegge/beads
| lysace wrote:
| 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/)
| thom wrote:
| 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.
| XorNot wrote:
| The most interesting thing about everyone trying to position
| themselves as AI experts is the futility of it: the explicitly
| promises tomorrow's models will be better then today's, which
| means the skill investment is deflationary: the best time to
| learn anything is tomorrow when a better model will be better
| at doing the same work - because you don't need to be
| (conversely if you're not good at debugging and reverse
| engineering now...)
| frogperson wrote:
| You nailed it. Thats exactly how I feel. Wake me up when the
| dust settles, and i'll deep dive and learn all the ins and
| outs. The churn is just too exhausting.
| delichon wrote:
| You might wake up in a whole different biome, Rip Van
| Winkle.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| I don't get the pressure. I don't know about you, but my
| job for a long time has been continually learning new
| systems. I don't get how so many of my peers fall into
| this head trip where they think they are gonna get left
| behind by what amounts to anticipated new features from
| some SaaS one day.
|
| How do you both hold that the technology is so
| revolutionary because of its productive gains, but at the
| same time so esoteric that you better be ontop of
| everything all the time?
|
| This stuff is all like a weird toy compared to other
| things I have taken the time to learn in my career, the
| sense of expertise people claim at all comes off to me
| like a guy who knows the Taco Bell secret menu, or the
| best set of coupons to use at Target. Its the opposite of
| intimidating!
| delichon wrote:
| A slow, deliberate approach is an excellent idea. We get
| nowhere by jumping at every shiny thing. But life may be
| too short to wait for the dust to settle.
| cjonas wrote:
| I may just be a "doomer", but my current take is we have
| maybe 3-5 years of decent compensation left to "extract"
| from our profession. Being an AI expert will likely extend
| that range slightly, but at the cost of being one of the
| "traitors" that helps build you're own replacement (but it
| will happen with or without you).
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| I have a reading list of a bunch of papers i didn't get
| through over the past 2 years. it is crazy how many papers on
| this list are completely not talked about anymore.
|
| I kinda regret going through the SeLU paper lol back in the
| late 2010s.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| doesn't that presume no value is being delivered by current
| models?
|
| I can understand applying this logic to building a startup on
| today's ai shortcomings... but value delivered today is still
| valuable even if it becomes more effective tomorrow.
| heliumtera wrote:
| They know hence: forget what it does, it was created by the ex
| CEO of another commonly used thingy!
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| But think of all the investor dollars between now and then!
| iamleppert wrote:
| 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!
| LowLevelKernel wrote:
| I'm manually checking in Agent.md for every commit to improve the
| context window usage. Is that now automated?
| gbasin wrote:
| you're doing what now?
| ibejoeb wrote:
| >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.
| causal wrote:
| Same thought. If anything I'm usually trying to find ways to
| reduce how much context is carried over.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Isnt this overloading git commits too much ? Like 50kb per
| commit message
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Git is totally fine keeping a few extra text files. These are
| ephemeral anyway. The working sessions just get squashed down
| and eliminated by the time I've got something worth saving
| anyway. At that point, I might keep a overview file around
| describing what the change does and how it was implemented.
|
| (I will give the agent boom a bit of credit: I write a lot
| more documentation now, because it's essentially instruction
| and initial instruction to anything else that works on it.
| That's a total inversion, and I think it's good.)
|
| The bigger problem is, like others have said, there's no one
| true flow. I use different agents for different things. I
| might summarize a lot of reasoning with a cheap model to
| create a design document, or use a higher reasoning model to
| sanity check a plan, whatever. It's a lot like programming in
| English. I don't want my tool to be prescriptive and imposing
| its technical restrictions on me.
|
| All of that aside: it's impossible that this tool raised $60
| million. The problem with this post is that it's supposed to
| be a hype post about changing the game "entirely" but it
| doesn't give us a glimpse into whatever we're supposed to by
| hyped about.
| ttoinou wrote:
| the git commits message description never go away though,
| unless you're editing the git with BFG cleaner
| ibejoeb wrote:
| 1. Commit messages go away if you remove the commit, but
|
| 2. Don't put it in the message. Put it in files.
| andyhedges wrote:
| 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.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Pretty much the same thing. I don't find it to be a burden.
| Regarding the product, I'm willing to believe I just don't
| see big picture, but without some peek at the magic, I don't
| know how much easier this could really be.
| duttish wrote:
| Very similar for me. I have a plans folder in my root where I
| store the plans while they're either under improvement or
| under implementation. Once they're done they're moved into
| the plans/old folder. So far it's worked great. It's a couple
| of manual steps extra but very helpful record.
| mixologic wrote:
| what about using git notes to stash the summaries?
| (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes)
| agluszak wrote:
| but you don't have a $60M seed and $300M valuation!!!1
| mohsen1 wrote:
| I am not willing to share my sheepish prompts with my team.
| Sorry!
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Hah. "If it's not too much trouble, would you mind if we
| disable the rimraf root feature?"
|
| Gotta bully that thing man. There's probably room in the market
| for a local tool that strips the superfluous niceties from
| instructions. Probably gonna save a material amount of tokens
| in aggregate.
| schaefer wrote:
| I'm with you. I start every new prompt with: "Good morning",
| even at midnight. I'll be so embarrassed if that leaks.
| singularfutur wrote:
| $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.
| aftergibson wrote:
| 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.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Maybe just learning 1 or 2 of such tools is enough ?
| aftergibson wrote:
| 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.
| ttoinou wrote:
| You will learn a lot about the underlying LLM / technology
| whichever tool you use though
| ReptileMan wrote:
| History has shown that by delaying learning the next greatest
| tech, you may avoid learning it altogether.
| aspenmartin wrote:
| 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.
| aftergibson wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not disputing that AI-assisted engineering is a
| real shift. It obviously is.
|
| My issue is that we've now got a million secondary "paradigm
| shifts" layered on top: agent frameworks, orchestration
| patterns, prompt DSLs, eval harnesses, routing, memory, tool
| calling, "autonomous" workflows... all presented like you're
| behind if you're not constantly replatforming your brain.
|
| Even if the end-state is "engineers code less", the near-term
| reality for most engineers is still: deliver software,
| support customers, handle incidents, and now also become
| competent evaluators of rapidly changing bot stacks. That
| cognitive tax is brutal.
|
| So yes, follow where the ball is going. I am. I'm just not
| pretending the current proliferation is anything other than
| noisy and expensive to keep up with.
| combyn8tor wrote:
| > I don't see how the average engineer has the energy or
| motivation to even understand these tools, never mind
| meaningfully compare them
|
| This is why I use the copilot extension in VS code. They seem
| to just copy whatever useful thing climbs to the surface of the
| AI tool slop pile. Last week I loaded up and Opus 4.6 was there
| ready to use. Yesterday I found it has a new Claude tool built
| in which I used to do some refactoring... it worked fine. It's
| like having an AI tool curator.
| ergocoder wrote:
| It's an ex-CEO of Github. He can raise $60m on any idea.
| _el1s7 wrote:
| 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.
| daredoes wrote:
| What's the long-term or even short-term strategy to make money?
|
| It's not like $60m in funding was given as charity.
| fakedang wrote:
| General purpose agentic AI for enterprises since apparently
| that's the hot shit for 2026 now.
| raggi wrote:
| Which CEO?
| AIorNot wrote:
| so github ci/cd agents rebranded as a startup? same team
| different company.
| carshodev wrote:
| I don't understand how this is different from giving an agent
| access to github logs? The landing page is terrible at explaining
| what it does.I guess they are just storing context in git aswell?
|
| So is this just a few context.md files that you tell the agent to
| update as you work and then push it when you are done???
| paodealho wrote:
| Sorry for not contributing to the discussion (as per the
| guidelines), but is it just me or this blog post reads a lot like
| LLM-filled mumble jumble? Seems like I could trim half of the
| words there and nothing would be lost.
| rippeltippel wrote:
| Agents can save their reasoning into markdown files, and commit
| those files to Git. Are "Checkpoints" just a marketing term for
| that, or there's more to it?
| reubenmorais wrote:
| Claude Code already does this, you can access it with /resume,
| /rewind and /fork. I'd imagine building a version that saves in
| the repo instead of in the home folder would take very minimal
| effort.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| This is about doing it seamlessly and flawlessly then sharing
| it across a team.
| ElFitz wrote:
| So using something like the compound engineering plugin and
| committing its "brainstorms", plans, and "solutions"?
| dworks wrote:
| I built a skill for this: https://github.com/doubleuuser/rlm-
| workflow
|
| The readme is a bit more to the point.
| suralind wrote:
| $300kk valuation for git commits :) the bubble will pop at some
| point, I don't know when, but boy will it be spectacular.
| ajbajb wrote:
| I did test it and use it and trashed it because there is very
| little value, actually none for me. These problems are easily
| being solved in other ways whoever has any experience with these
| tools. Getting $60M round for this stuff is ridiculous.
| heliumtera wrote:
| The lack of explanation of what it is and does is a tell of what
| gullible audience they are seeking.
|
| Tech marketing has become a lot like dating, no technical
| explanation and intellectual honesty, just word words words and
| unreasonable expectations.
|
| People usually cannot be honest in their romantic affairs, and
| here it is the same. Nobody can state: we just want to be between
| you and whatever you want to accomplish, rent seeking forever!
|
| Will they ever care to elaborate HOW things works and the
| rationale behind stating this provides any benefit whatsoever?
| Perhaps this is not intended for those type of humans that care
| about understanding and logic?
| zwaps wrote:
| I shall give the benefit of a doubt given they are "building in
| the open". I feel my current setup already does all this though,
| so I struggle to see the point
| ElFitz wrote:
| It's funny. The whole "review intent", "learning" from past
| mistakes, etc, is exactly what my current set up does too. For
| free. Using .md files said agents generate as they go.
| delduca wrote:
| I bet it will down/unstable 3/4 of the month.
| jpease wrote:
| Clicks through to see what Tom or Chris started...
|
| Oh, nevermind, it's some MS dude.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-10 23:00 UTC)