This is what I am building as Branch Story. For any branch or pull request, it reconstructs that narrative, grounded in your team's actual captured decisions rather than guessed from the diff. It reads as a story of how the work happened, not a log dump, because a log dump is just more material to skim and the entire point is to stop skimming.
It works for human-written branches too, which matters more than it sounds. A teammate reviewing a teammate gets the same narrative, so review becomes consistent across human and agent work instead of being two different activities. And honestly, that consistency is part of what makes a team willing to let an agent open pull requests at all. The blocker on agent autonomy was never whether the agent could write the code. It is whether a human can responsibly sign off on it. Trust is the unlock, and trust comes from being able to see the why quickly.
What it does not do
I want to be straight about the limits, because overselling this would be its own kind of damage. Branch Story does not replace your judgment and it does not certify that code is correct. It makes the why legible so your judgment is fast and accurate instead of slow and guessed. And it is only as good as the context behind it, if your team's decisions are not captured anywhere, there is no story to reconstruct, which is exactly why the capture side is the hard part and where most of my work goes.
But the direction feels right to me. As more of the code gets written by something that cannot explain itself in the hallway, the scarce resource is not code and it is not review hours. It is legible intent. That is the thing worth building.
When you review an agent's pull request, are you reading it, or are you approving it? Be honest. That gap is the whole problem.
decispher.com
VS code extension