If you ask almost any software developer, when you do code review, do you really read the whole PR? Like, do you go through every line and think it through? Do you pull it down and test it out and then leave the good feedback on each line? Agents are very good at that, right? If something goes wrong, that's very human. The sexually thing that has never been good in software development is interteam communication. So it's a very interesting U.S. problem set that I think

nobody's really fought through, really, even now. What does that tool look like in a way that is

easy to use and easy to learn? Software developers that would be the best producers of product in the

near future are the ones who can communicate, the ones who can write, the ones who can describe.

That is, I think, the next superpower.

And I think if we could talk to each other in more real time about what we're doing,

that's a lot of overhead.

That is not a problem that agents have.

The most widely used developer tool in the world was never designed.

Git started as plumbing commands for the Linux kernel team.

Unix primitives meant to be wrapped in whatever scripts each developer preferred.

A volunteer wrote a unified interface.

It got pulled into core, and for 20 years, almost nothing has changed.

Now coding agents are the fastest growing users of command line tools, an entirely new persona.

They struggle with interactive rebasing.

They run status after every command.

The assumptions baked into GIT's interface no longer hold for humans or machines.

The question is whether the tool underpinning nearly all modern software can adapt

or whether something new has to replace it.

Matt Bornstein, general partner at A16C, speaks with Scott Chacon,

co-founder of GitHub and CEO of Git Butler.

We are here today with Scott Chacon,

...