AgenticCodebase
What happens when an AI agent understands your code the way an architect understands a building — structurally, historically, and predictively?
The tech lead says: "Refactor PaymentProcessor.processPayment() — it's a 400-line god method. Break it into smaller functions. Don't break anything."
Symbol lookup + Structural understanding
Found in 14.3μs. Public async, complexity 34, stability 0.31. CONTAINS edges show 14 methods in the class, inside the payments package.
Impact analysis
47 dependents across 12 files. 23 callers. 3 high-risk: webhook handler (stability 0.22, dynamic import), batch reconciler (nightly job), GraphQL resolver (public API). 5 test files cover this method.
Hidden coupling
COUPLES_WITH: processor.ts and payment_confirmation.ts co-change 82% of the time. No code dependency. Business logic coupling — pricing changes require template updates.
Call graph + Concept mapping
10 internal calls spanning 5 responsibilities: input validation (2), pricing calculation (2), payment execution (1), post-payment fulfillment (3), observability (2). Each concept suggests a natural extraction boundary.
Prophecy + Stability
Risk score 0.87 — 3rd highest. 19 changes in 45 days, 37% bugfix ratio, complexity doubled, 4 authors. Stability 0.31. The refactor isn't premature — it's overdue.
Test gaps + FFI + Type hierarchy
Discount path: 0 dedicated tests. Webhook path: 0 tests. FFI_BINDS: calculateTotal() calls Rust pricing engine via N-API — must preserve call convention. INHERITS: 2 subclasses (SubscriptionPaymentProcessor, RefundPaymentProcessor) override this method. Interface IPaymentHandler must also update.
The gate + The plan
acb gate: risk 0.87, above threshold 0.60. But the refactor itself is the fix. The agent synthesizes all 10 analyses:
Add 3 tests first. Extract validateAndCalculate(), executePayment(), and fulfillOrder(). Keep processPayment as orchestrator. Update 2 subclass overrides. Update the interface. Verify N-API compatibility. Update the email template (hidden coupling). Run full suite.
Refactoring plan: 400 lines → 4 focused methods. Impact: 47 dependents, 3 high-risk callers, 2 subclass overrides, 1 interface update, 1 FFI boundary, 1 hidden coupling. Test gaps: 3 paths need coverage first. Risk: 0.87 → projected 0.45 after decomposition. No breaking API changes if orchestrator signature preserved.
Eleven analyses. One comprehensive plan. Every dependency mapped. Every risk quantified. Every hidden coupling surfaced. The god method doesn't stand a chance.
In plain terms
This is the difference between refactoring with a flashlight and refactoring with floodlights. AgenticCodebase doesn't just understand the code you're changing — it understands everything connected to it, everything that changed with it, and everything that might break because of it.