Switchboard exists for a very specific kind of workflow: you already use Linear to define the work, and you want the code to show up as a pull request without manually shepherding every step.
That is a good problem to automate.
Junction's Switchboard is not a generic "agent does everything" button. It is an automation layer that watches for tagged Linear issues, spins up the right agent workspace, runs the task, and opens a PR when it is done.
The basic flow
The path from issue to pull request is intentionally simple:
- A Linear issue gets tagged for Switchboard.
- Switchboard picks up the issue.
- It creates an isolated git worktree.
- It runs an agent with the configured provider and repo settings.
- It opens a PR when the work is complete.
That sequence matters because it keeps the automation bounded. The issue is the trigger, the worktree is the isolation layer, and the pull request is the review checkpoint.
Why the isolated worktree matters
Automation gets messy when multiple runs step on the same checkout.
Switchboard avoids that by creating an isolated worktree for each run. That gives the agent its own branch, working directory, and local context. It also makes parallel runs safer because each task is not fighting with the last one.
For teams, that is the difference between "we tried auto-PR once" and "we can trust this to run again."
It also means you can inspect the resulting branch like any other branch. You are not forced into a cloud-only review path.
What Switchboard is good at
Switchboard is strongest when the issue is already structured enough to automate:
- bug fixes with a clear reproduction path,
- docs updates,
- small feature work,
- cleanup tasks,
- and repetitive maintenance that should not consume a human's full attention.
Because it runs 24/7, it also works as an always-on intake path for issues that appear after hours.
That makes it useful for teams that want to reduce the time between "this should be fixed" and "here is the branch to review."
What Switchboard is not good at
It is not magic.
You should not expect it to handle:
- vague product requests with no scope,
- work that needs deep design decisions,
- changes that depend on a lot of human context,
- or anything where the issue itself is too underspecified to automate safely.
The better the Linear issue, the better the automation. Garbage in still means garbage in, just faster.
That is why Switchboard works best when teams are already disciplined about issue quality.
How routing works
Junction's pricing and feature copy make the routing story pretty clear: Switchboard can route work per team and repository, and it supports configurable concurrency.
That is useful when you do not want every issue to land on the same machine or the same provider. Some tasks are better suited to one daemon, some to another, and some to a particular provider configuration.
If you already run multiple daemons, Switchboard lets you turn that into an automation asset instead of a maintenance burden.
A concrete example
Imagine a Linear issue that says:
"Add retry logic for the webhook job and open a PR with tests."
With Switchboard, that can become:
- a tagged Linear issue,
- a dedicated worktree,
- an agent run on the right daemon,
- a branch with the changes,
- and a PR ready for review.
That is a meaningful reduction in overhead because nobody has to remember the exact shell commands or branch setup each time.
The review still happens in Git. The implementation simply starts from a higher-quality default.
How this compares with manual agent runs
Manual agent runs are still great when you want to stay close to the keyboard.
Switchboard becomes interesting when you want to turn a repeatable issue class into background work. The distinction is:
- manual runs are for interactive supervision,
- Switchboard is for structured automation.
That is also why it belongs in the Switchboard plan rather than the free or Core tiers. It is not just more usage. It is a different operating mode.
A simple checklist before you automate
Before you rely on issue-to-PR automation, make sure your team can answer these questions:
- Is the issue scoped tightly enough to automate?
- Do we want one issue to map to one worktree?
- Which daemon or provider should handle the run?
- What is the review path when the PR opens?
- What should happen if the run gets blocked?
If those answers are clear, Switchboard is a good fit.
If they are fuzzy, spend more time on issue quality before adding automation.
Where Junction fits in the bigger workflow
Switchboard is most useful when it sits alongside the rest of Junction:
- the daemon stays local,
- the browser shows live run status,
- notifications tell you when a run needs input,
- and Git review stays inside the product instead of being bolted on later.
That makes it a stronger fit for teams that care about local-first execution than for teams that want a generic issue bot.
Next step
If you want to see whether Switchboard fits your team, compare pricing and look at the Switchboard section on the homepage. If you want the underlying setup first, start with the setup guide.