Campfyrr vs Entire: finding out why an agent did it, or telling the next one first
By Soumen Sarkar · October 2026
Comparison. If your problem is finding out why an agent did something after it's done, use Entire: it keeps the full session behind every commit in git, so a reviewer can trace a line back to its prompt. If your problem is the next session undoing a call it never heard about, use Campfyrr: it gives that session the team's decisions and reasons before it edits. Many teams have both problems.
What are you trying to fix?
If you want to find out why an agent did something, after it's done, use Entire. If you want the next session to know why before it changes anything, use Campfyrr. Many teams have both problems, and the two tools run side by side.
- "I'm reviewing a change and can't tell why the agent did it." Entire. It saves the session behind each commit (prompts, transcript, tool calls, files touched) and links it to the commit (Entire docs).
entire why goes from a surprising line to the session behind it (Entire FAQ). - "I need a record of every prompt behind our code." Entire. The record lives in your repository, next to the code.
- "A teammate's agent undid a call we made yesterday, and nobody noticed until review." Campfyrr. It tells each session what was decided in an area, and why, the first time the session touches it.
Both start from the same question: why did the agent do this? Entire answers it at review time. Campfyrr answers it for the next agent, before it acts.
The same day, with each
Here's a scene, not a customer story. Three developers and a PM. On Monday the PM decides checkout charges the card only after stock is confirmed, because refunds for out-of-stock orders are hurting support. Priya's agent builds it. On Tuesday, Sam's agent is fixing a slow checkout. It sees the stock check before the charge, judges it the slow part, and moves the charge first. The tests pass.
With Entire, Priya's session is saved with her commit. On Wednesday the reviewer spots the reordering, runs entire why on the line, finds Priya's session and reads the PM's reason. Entire did its job: the reason was there. But Sam's agent never saw it, so the reversal was built, tested and reviewed before anyone caught it. That's an afternoon of rework. If the reviewer is busy and doesn't ask why, it ships.
With Campfyrr, the PM's call is recorded as a decision with its reason and who made it. When Sam's session first opens the checkout code, its brief lists that decision. The agent looks for the slowness somewhere else, or flags that it wants to change the order. If the team does change it, the newer decision replaces the older one and the clash is shown. On Wednesday the reviewer reads the reasons for the change, not a transcript. Campfyrr keeps no transcript, so there's no replay of Sam's session.
At the end of the day, Entire leaves a full record of what happened. Campfyrr leaves less to find in that record.
When Entire is the better choice
- You need an audit trail. Every prompt and tool call behind each commit, kept in git, and storable in a separate repository you control (Entire docs). Campfyrr has no audit logs yet and doesn't show a whole session as a transcript.
- Your reviewers trace lines.
entire blame and entire why take a reviewer from a line to the prompt behind it. If review is your bottleneck because people can't reconstruct what happened, that's direct help. - You work mostly alone, or in separate corners of the code. If sessions rarely meet in the same area, there's little for a brief to prevent, and a good record matters more.
Entire also has a memory plugin, entire-brain: your agent asks it for a brief before a task, or saves a rule (Entire docs). It's a step the agent takes. In Campfyrr the brief arrives through hooks, without anyone asking.
What it costs
Entire: we found no published price on entire.io or in its docs on 20 October 2026. The CLI is free and open source (GitHub). Hosted features need an Entire account; ask Entire what those cost. Campfyrr: Team is $9 per developer a month, minimum 3, or $7 billed yearly; business teammates are free (Pricing). For 5 developers and 3 business teammates, that's five times $9, so $45 a month, or five times $7, so $35 a month billed yearly. Everything is free during early access.
The cost that matters more is the daily one. Entire captures with no effort, but someone has to go and read it: open the session, run why, ask brain for a brief. And transcripts hold what the agent read and wrote, which usually means code; anyone who can read the repository can read them, with secrets redacted on a best-effort basis (Entire docs). Campfyrr asks nobody to run a command. People act only to answer an assumption from a link, and it never takes your code or diffs (Trust).
Verdict
Choose Entire if you need the full record behind every commit, in git, so reviewers and auditors can trace any line back to its session.
Choose Campfyrr if several people run agents in the same code and the trouble is sessions that don't know about each other undoing each other's calls. To see what a session gets, see the demo.
Use both if you want the reasons to reach the next agent before it changes something, and a full record afterwards for the times it still goes wrong. The pattern is in sharing a session vs sharing what sessions know, and every product we looked at is in our research.
The problem this answers: Review is the bottleneck: "I can't tell why an agent did that, so review is the bottleneck."
The principle behind this: Build on what's coming: Unfinished work is a promise, and a promise can be built on.
Move as one at agent speed. Nobody waits. Add Campfyrr to Claude: it briefs every agent before it touches the code, keeps assumptions and handoffs where the team can see them, and never takes your code (what it keeps).