Atomic commits are based on snapshotting done by lakeFS under the hood. Each sandbox run produces a new atomic commit to a hidden "main" branch. Updating that branch is optimistically concurrent, with lakeFS checking for conflicts - multiple writers updating the same object.

Agents are really good at interacting with files and directories (text in, text out!). This adds a layer for those that allows managing that state in a transactional, versioned way.

Not sure what else we can do in this world other than tightly control outbound requests and provide enough visibility into those requests for a human|agent to try and undo changes.

Happy to hear your thoughts - what would you like to see us take this?

1. to have a human in the loop to approve certain changes 2. rollback changes that end up being incorrect 3. allow reviewing the timeline and history to figure out what changed and how