Comparison
Don't compare slogans.
Compare which boundary each tool controls.
Coding-agent controls, sandboxes, worktrees, review systems and StateHinge solve different parts of the workflow. The useful question is where your current process still loses review or recovery time.
| Approach | Main job | What it already handles well | What StateHinge is testing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent-native controls | Agent execution | Permissions, sandboxing, checkpoints, tests and agent workflow controls | Whether an independent acceptance/recovery boundary removes additional real work |
| Sandbox / worktree | Isolation | Keeps generated work away from the primary working state | Whether checks, exact acceptance and recovery evidence add value after isolation |
| PR / manual review | Human review | Diff visibility, discussion, ownership and merge history | Whether a more explicit machine-checkable candidate→approval→recovery chain reduces reconstruction cost |
| StateHinge | Accepted-state transition + recovery | Verified core mechanics for scoped validation, acceptance, promotion and rollback evidence | Real customer use must prove that the added boundary saves enough time to keep |
Decision rule
If Git + your agent's native controls already solve the job, don't add another layer.
StateHinge earns a place only when it measurably reduces acceptance, recovery or repeated-work cost.