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.

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.

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>`.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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 readme is a bit more to the point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=338286

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.

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.

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

It's not like $60m in funding was given as charity.

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.

But seriously, $300M valuation for a CLI tool that adds some metadata to Git commits. I don't know what to say.

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?

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.

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.

Oh, nevermind, it’s some MS dude.

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.

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!

There is no Composer 2.0. There is Cursor 2.0 and Composer 1.5.

I couldn't find any references of Composer 2.0 anywhere. When did that come out?

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.

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/)

"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?