Resources

Use cases

Where a code graph actually helps

Last updated July 1, 2026

Graphify maps your codebase into a knowledge graph your AI coding assistant queries instead of grepping. That's the whole product — open source, MIT, on-device. Here are the situations where that trade actually pays off, without embellishment. For the mechanics behind each one, see how Graphify works; for the vocabulary, the glossary.

Onboarding to a large codebase

The first weeks in an unfamiliar repo are spent building a mental map: what the subsystems are, what talks to what, where the dangerous shared modules live. Graphify builds that map in one command. Run /graphify . and you get an interactive graph.html plus a GRAPH_REPORT.mdthat names the natural communities in the code, flags the god nodes everything depends on, and lists surprising connections worth knowing about. It's the diagram the architecture wiki promised and never delivered — generated from the actual AST, not from someone's memory of it. Start with the build step in the docs.

Cutting tokens in Cursor and Claude Code

When an assistant answers "how does auth work here?" by grepping, it reads whole files into context and pays for every token — repeatedly, across every session. When it queries the graph instead, it receives the relevant nodes and edges: the handful of functions on the path, not the files that contain them. Less context burned on retrieval means lower cost per question and more room for the actual task. Graphify installs as a skill in 17 AI assistants, including Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, and Copilot — the full list is on the integrations page.

PR review with blast radius

A diff shows what changed; it doesn't show what the change touches. Because the graph knows every caller and every reference, graphify prs can put each open PR in context: which communities it lands in, whether it collides with other open work, and how far its effects propagate. For teams that want this at the merge gate — with graph-aware review checks running in their own VPC — Graphify Enterprise builds on the same graph. See reviewing PRs against the graph.

"What breaks if I change this?"

The question behind most production incidents. Text search finds the string; it doesn't find the chain. A graph answers it by traversal: graphify query for everything that touches a symbol, graphify path for the exact route between two points, graphify explain for why a connection exists. Every hop is an edge the parser found or a model inferred — and each edge carries a confidence tag (EXTRACTED, INFERRED, or AMBIGUOUS), so you know which parts of the answer are facts and which are judgment calls. Commands are covered in the docs.

Replacing RAG for code

Teams often reach for a chunk-embed-retrieve pipeline to give assistants codebase context. For code, that pipeline works against you: chunking severs the call graph, embeddings answer "what looks similar?" rather than "what connects?", and every change means re-embedding. A code graph keeps the structure the pipeline throws away, and updates incrementally when the code changes. The detailed comparisons are at Graphify vs RAG and Graphify vs vector databases — including the honest caveat that embeddings remain the right tool for fuzzy search over large volumes of prose.

Codebase context without sending code anywhere

Some teams can't ship source to a hosted indexing service, full stop. Graphify's parsing runs entirely on-device with bundled tree-sitter grammars; the graph is a file on your disk, and there's no account, no API key, and no telemetry. If your constraint is "the code never leaves the machine," this is the use case Graphify was shaped around — details on the security page.

Where Graphify won't help

Honesty cuts both ways. If your repo is small enough that an assistant can read it whole, a graph adds ceremony you don't need. If your workload is semantic search over documents rather than reasoning over code, embeddings are genuinely the better tool. And the graph informs your assistant — it doesn't make a weak model strong.

Everything above ships in the open-source CLI, free forever under MIT — see pricing for exactly what that means, or jump into the quickstart.

Common questions

When is a code knowledge graph worth the setup?

When the codebase is too large for an assistant to read whole, and the questions are structural — what calls this, what breaks if I change it, how do these two subsystems connect. That's where onboarding, blast-radius PR review, and impact analysis pay off. If the repo is small enough to read in full, or your workload is semantic search over prose rather than reasoning over code, a graph adds ceremony you don't need.

How does querying the graph cut token cost?

When an assistant answers 'how does auth work here?' by grepping, it reads whole files into context and pays for every token, repeatedly, across every session. Querying the graph returns just the handful of functions and edges on the path to the answer instead of the files that contain them, so less context is burned on retrieval and more is left for the actual task.

Can Graphify help review pull requests?

Yes. A diff shows what changed but not what the change touches. Because the graph knows every caller and reference, graphify prs puts each open PR in context — which communities it lands in, whether it collides with other open work, and how far its effects propagate. Teams that want this at the merge gate, running graph-aware checks in their own VPC, can build on the same graph with Graphify Enterprise.

Does using Graphify send my code anywhere?

Parsing runs entirely on-device with bundled tree-sitter grammars, the graph is a file on your disk, and there's no account, API key, or telemetry. The one honest caveat: Graphify doesn't change where your own coding assistant sends its prompts — it adds no new place your code travels, but it doesn't alter your assistant's existing model calls.