github/codegraph
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix: Increase explore traversal depth and support qualified symbol lookups

Browse Source 
Two fixes discovered while benchmarking Swift (Alamofire):

1. codegraph_explore traversalDepth 2→3: Deep call chains (e.g., Alamofire's
   9-step Session.request()→URLSession flow) couldn't be followed in a single
   explore call, forcing agents to fall back to file reads.

2. findSymbol/findAllSymbols now support "Parent.child" notation (e.g.,
   "Session.request") by matching against qualified names (::Parent::child).
   Previously only checked node.name === symbol, which never matched qualified
   queries since node names are unqualified.

Also adds Alamofire Swift benchmark data to README (91% fewer tool calls,
78% faster with CodeGraph).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Colby McHenry
2026-04-03 19:56:58 -05:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.6
parent 0d6f460b15
commit b986b78fa9
2 changed files with 32 additions and 10 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
README.md
+4
View File
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ We tested the same exploration queries across 4 real-world codebases in differen
| **Excalidraw** | TypeScript | "How does collaborative editing and real-time sync work?" | 3 calls, 29s | 47 calls, 1m 45s | **94% fewer** | **72% faster** |
| **Claude Code** | Python + Rust | "How does tool execution work end to end?" | 3 calls, 39s | 40 calls, 1m 8s | **93% fewer** | **43% faster** |
| **Claude Code** | Java | "How does tool execution work end to end?" | 1 call, 19s | 26 calls, 1m 22s | **96% fewer** | **77% faster** |
| **Alamofire** | Swift | "Trace how a request flows from Session.request() through to the URLSession layer" | 3 calls, 22s | 32 calls, 1m 39s | **91% fewer** | **78% faster** |
<details>
<summary><strong>Full benchmark details</strong></summary>
@@ -57,6 +58,7 @@ All tests used Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) with Claude Code v2.1.91. Each test
| Excalidraw (TypeScript) | 626 | 9,859 | 3 | 57.1k | 29s | 0 |
| Claude Code (Python+Rust) | 115 | 3,080 | 3 | 67.1k | 39s | 0 |
| Claude Code (Java) | — | — | 1 | 40.8k | 19s | 0 |
| Alamofire (Swift) | 102 | 2,624 | 3 | 57.3k | 22s | 0 |
**Without CodeGraph — the agent uses grep, find, ls, and Read extensively:**
| Codebase | Tool Uses | Tokens | Time | File Reads |
@@ -65,12 +67,14 @@ All tests used Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) with Claude Code v2.1.91. Each test
| Excalidraw (TypeScript) | 47 | 77.9k | 1m 45s | ~20 |
| Claude Code (Python+Rust) | 40 | 69.3k | 1m 8s | ~15 |
| Claude Code (Java) | 26 | 73.3k | 1m 22s | ~15 |
| Alamofire (Swift) | 32 | 52.4k | 1m 39s | ~10 |
**Key observations:**
- With CodeGraph, the agent **never fell back to reading files** — it trusted the codegraph_explore results completely
- Without CodeGraph, agents spent most of their time on discovery (find, ls, grep) before they could even start reading relevant code
- The Java codebase needed only **1 codegraph_explore call** to answer the entire question
- Cross-language queries (Python+Rust) worked seamlessly — CodeGraph's graph traversal found connections across language boundaries
- The Swift benchmark (Alamofire) traced a **9-step call chain** from `Session.request()` to `URLSession.dataTask()` — CodeGraph's graph traversal at depth 3 captured the full chain in one explore call
</details>