Throwing out some thoughts after reading the docs page(s):

1. The "What are trails" section does not actually tell me what trails are; it tells me it brings agents and devs together, and that branches are involved somehow through "changes", but it doesn't actually tell me what they are

2. I am never going to willingly watch a Youtube video embeded in docs. I'm barely going to watch a video in a docs page at all. I'm here to learn how to use something, not see a sponsored ad for NordVPN.

3. The marketing blurb, the top half of the docs, and the bottom half ("Enable Trails" onwards) all feel like their describing different things. The marketing blurb describes a total reinvention/view of the PR layout where instead of seeing diffs you see different bars that you can balance by telling the bots to keep reviewing/changing. The top half of the docs sounds like some sort of spec description system and absolutely reeks of LLM speak.

4. The rest of the docs make more sense: Under the web UI tab for "Create a Trail" I finally see what a Trail looks like (a simplified Jira ticket or GH issue) and I start actually understanding that this is an elaborate "built for AI" version of stacked PRs, CI checks, and project management.

5. The Agents and Gates subdocs are where content starts getting interesting and the documentation quality is a lot better. I am actually getting interested in this product.

I still don't fully understand what and why I would want Trails, but I suspect I'm not the target audience. There's bits of it that certainly look interesting but having to swap all my infra over to Entire is a hard sell.

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.

Just out of curiosity: How do you review PRs/MRs? Manually? And is your company actively using AI-assisted coding?

Thanks! I wasn't able to find that in the navbar. I'll give this a real try. It looks interesting.

Their version of the PR is called a “Trail”, and they have a feature called “Runners” which can automatically review commits on a trail based on certain factors— you can customize which factors but their defaults were good enough for me. My main project was a large monorepo and Runners did a great job of catching “drift” where an agent would do something in a non-standard way, or fail to appropriately update documentation. In a nutshell, Runners make adversarial review really easy and nicely visualized in Entire’s UI (or CLI). Other than that though, I would give entire credit for basically creating a fast drop-in replacement for GitHub that just works for me. While I do like their AI features and tools for agents, I wouldn’t be using their product if they didn’t get the fundamentals right and so far it’s just worked.

The Rebel Alliance was bankrolled by the Royal House of Alderaan. Just saying.

Concretely, our CLI is OS (MIT), and we're working toward open-sourcing the storage backend EntireDB so you can self-host it on your own infra or run a variant of it. That your sessions, prompts, and review history live in your repo, not locked in our platform, means you can always walk.

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?

Karthik's comments have been getting blocked. I don't agree with the screen recording because an agent session isn't just a reply of keystrokes. A session contains not just what happened, but why: the intent and reasoning from the prompts, the dead-ends, what was attempted but not shipped, and "why did we do it this way." That shouldn't disappear when a session ends.

Similarly, human review doesn't matter because humans type the code, it matters because someone still ahs to decide if something is right and if not, own the consequences.

And starting fresh with agents is pricey. Continuous memory is helpful so you can see why the last change was made, burning fewer tokens and not repeating mistakes so you don't need to relearn the codebase from scratch each time

You don’t. Everything stays with you right beside your code!

You can read more about session storage on our docs here: https://docs.entire.com/guides/checkpoints/checkpoint-storag...

You don’t have to give it to us. The CLI writes the session into your repo, as refs versioned alongside your commits. If you want to push that to GitHub or anywhere else, nothing stops you. The capture format is the open part on purpose.

[flagged]

Agents are such an amazing building tool, similar to how compilers and high-level languages were. It superchargers builders and that's why so much code is now being written (not always by humans.) The bottleneck was never typing, but to me, it's deciding what to build, verifying it's right, and keeping it all coherent, which is what we're rebuilding the forge around.

Most code was never the interesting part, and we’ve been handing it off for 60 years. compilers took asm, gc took memory, ides took the grep. agents are the next hand-off, not a kludge over the last one.

I dont think it’s a bet that tools cant get better either. better languages and tools make agents better too, they’re not competing. if rust-level types and a great lsp make the agent 3x more reliable, great, we still need somewhere to put the result.

The problem that never got fixed isnt the language, its that the reasoning gets thrown away between the person and the artifact. commit messages were always bad, docs always rotted, “why is this here” was always answered by whoever remembered.

Agents just made that acute, because now theres no one who remembers. thats the bit we’re trying to fix. if a better language fixes it too, honestly id take that.