codeblast 0.3.0 → 0.3.1

package/README.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+**codeblast** is a deterministic code-graph CLI for TypeScript and Python repositories that tells developers and AI agents what breaks before a change is merged.
+
 <p align="center">
   <img src="assets/readme/hero.svg" width="100%" alt="codeblast — deterministic code graph: know what breaks before you merge"/>
 </p>
@@ -13,6 +15,8 @@
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-8b949e?style=flat-square" alt="MIT"/>
 </p>
 
+## What it is
+
 **codeblast parses your repository into a deterministic code graph and answers the three most expensive questions around any code change:**
 > 🔗 **[Live interactive demo](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/)** — real architecture maps of tRPC / Tabby / sgp, with three-level drill-down
 
@@ -35,19 +39,47 @@ Built for humans (CLI / interactive HTML / PR comments) and for AI agents ([SKIL
       <a href="https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/tabby-arch.html">
         <img src="assets/readme/arch-hover.png" alt="Tabby architecture map with hover highlighting: all edges into tabby-core lit up"/>
       </a>
-      <p align="center"><sub><b>Architecture map</b> — hover lights the dependency fan-in (Tabby, 60k★ · <a href="https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/tabby-arch.html">live ↗</a>)</sub></p>
+      <p align="center"><sub><b>Architecture map</b> — hover lights the dependency fan-in (Tabby, 70k★ · <a href="https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/tabby-arch.html">live ↗</a>)</sub></p>
     </td>
   </tr>
 </table>
 
+## Install
+
 ```bash
 npx codeblast demo            # build a graph of the current repo, run one impact query, emit the map
 npm i -g codeblast            # or install globally; needs Node ≥ 22.13 (built-in sqlite) or Bun
+                              # npm serves 0.3.0; this checkout is 0.3.1 (unpublished)
 
 # Install as an agent skill (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and 14 more harnesses)
 npx skills add alloevil/codeblast
 ```
 
+### As a GitHub Action (one line)
+
+```yaml
+# .github/workflows/codeblast.yml
+name: codeblast
+on: pull_request
+permissions:
+  contents: read
+  pull-requests: write
+jobs:
+  analyze:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        with: { fetch-depth: 0 }      # the analyzer compares base and head commits
+      - uses: alloevil/codeblast@v0.3.1
+```
+
+The action builds the analyzer from the ref you pinned (not from npm, which can lag),
+posts one sticky comment per PR and updates it in place, and stays silent when the diff
+has no structural change. Inputs: `base`, `head`, `repo-url`, `comment` (set to `false`
+to only produce the file); outputs: `has_comment`, `comment_path`. If you prefer to own
+the commenting step, copy [`.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml`](.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml)
+instead — it runs the same command with `npx`.
+
 ## Why not yet another LLM diagram tool
 
 ```
@@ -55,14 +87,18 @@ LLM diagrams:  code → model reads it → hand-drawn graph → render     graph
 codeblast:     code → deterministic tsc/AST parse → graph → project  graph = checkable facts
 ```
 
-**Every node, every edge, every claim carries `file:line` evidence** you can open and verify.
+**Every node and every static-analysis edge carries `file:line` evidence** you can open and verify (`co_change` edges put a co-commit count in that field instead of a source line; file-level nodes carry line 1).
 The LLM does exactly one job in the pipeline: giving modules human-readable names — node membership and edges always come from static analysis.
 
 ## The three queries
 
+<p align="center">
+  <img src="assets/readme/three-queries.svg" width="100%" alt="The three codeblast queries — impact: check the blast radius first; change: structural diff between two refs; archmap: module, file and symbol drill-down"/>
+</p>
+
 ```bash
 # Build the graph: auto-detects TS monorepos / Python, hash-based incremental updates
-# (full build of tRPC, 950 files, in ~20s)
+# (full build of tRPC: 957 files, 6248 nodes, 17072 edges — the sample run in SKILL.md)
 codeblast index <repo> --db graph.db
 
 # ① Impact — check the blast radius before you change anything
@@ -88,19 +124,39 @@ codeblast cochange <repo> graph.db
 
 Copy [`.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml`](.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml) into your repo (it runs `npx codeblast pr-comment`, no other setup):
 every PR gets an automatic comment with structural changes + blast radius + new symbols with no test coverage; **PRs with no structural change get zero comments**.
-Replayed against 50 real commits: 42 correctly stayed silent, 87.5% of comments were useful.
+Replayed against 50 real commits: 42 correctly stayed silent. Comment usefulness is the honest weak spot —
+four review rounds — rounds 1–3 independent blind review, round 4 by the current model — scored 25% / 75% / 57% / 20% useful, against 7/8 = 87.5% when the
+authoring agent rated its own comments; both numbers and the fixes that followed each round are logged in
+[intent.md](intent.md).
 
 ## The precision promise (bounded, and evidence-backed)
 
 - **TypeScript at function level: zero missed impact within statically analyzable scope.** Verified by mutation testing:
   inject mutations into a real repo → run the full test suite to get the ground-truth impact set → compare against predictions.
-  Two benchmarks, both hard gates in the weekly acceptance workflow: **tRPC** (vitest, 950 files) **28/28**
+  Two benchmarks, both hard gates in the weekly acceptance workflow: **tRPC** (vitest, 957 files) **28/28**
   and **graphql-tools** (jest + npm workspaces, 353 files) **10/10** — 100% recall on each, average precision
   0.33–0.36. Favoring false positives over false negatives is a deliberate trade: in a controlled experiment,
-  dropping the conservative edges raises precision to 0.70 but recall collapses to 14%. Data lives in [`eval/`](eval/).
+  restricting the result to the call channel (items whose path is call-graph only) raises precision to 0.70 but recall collapses to 14%. Data lives in [`eval/`](eval/).
 - **Blind spots are explicitly flagged.** A blind spot is any call or import that static analysis cannot resolve to an in-repo target — dynamic calls, unresolved calls, failed external-dependency resolution, subprocess boundaries, test-framework globals — not just dynamic calls; each is recorded in `blind_spots` with an "impact may be underestimated" warning, never silently dropped.
 - **Python is file-level.** Dynamic typing makes function-level zero-miss guarantees impossible in principle, and we don't pretend otherwise.
 
+## When to use it
+
+- You are about to change an exported TypeScript symbol in a monorepo and want the callsite list and the test list *before* you edit, not after CI fails.
+- You are an AI agent editing code: `impact --json` before the edit puts the callsites in context, `change --json` after it catches scope creep and accidental deletions.
+- You are reviewing a PR and want the structural delta — edges added, symbols renamed, new symbols with no test coverage — separated from formatting noise.
+- You just inherited an unfamiliar TypeScript or Python repo and want a map whose every box and arrow can be opened at the source line that justifies it.
+- You need the answer to be checkable by someone who does not trust the tool.
+
+## When NOT to use it
+
+- **You want function-level guarantees on Python.** Python is file-level with typed-call upgrades; duck typing makes a zero-miss promise impossible in principle and we don't pretend otherwise.
+- **You want a short, precise impact list.** Mean precision is 0.33–0.36 overall; the call channel alone runs 0.702 (tRPC ablation) to 0.918 (graphql-tools) — a derived range, the min and max of the two per-benchmark means in [`eval/`](eval/), not one measured figure. The engine over-approximates on purpose — read the `call` channel first, treat the full list as the test set.
+- **Your dependencies run through what static analysis cannot resolve** — dynamic `require`, `eval`, subprocess boundaries, uninstalled `node_modules`, test-framework globals. Those are reported as `blind_spots`, never silently dropped, but such a repo gets a thin graph.
+- **You want a presentation diagram or a collaborative canvas.** `archmap` emits facts for navigation; feed its JSON to a rendering tool if you need something pretty.
+- **You want cross-service / cross-repo edges, or Java.** The graph model reserves the node types, v1 does not fill those edges, and Java is explicitly not implemented ([intent.md](intent.md)).
+- **You want the PR bot to replace a reviewer.** It is a structural-change signal whose usefulness measured between 20% and 75% depending on the review round.
+
 ## For AI agents
 
 ```
@@ -111,8 +167,26 @@ after editing:   change HEAD~1 HEAD --json → self-check for scope creep and ac
 The full contract and interpretation discipline (including "never pretend the blind-spot list is complete") is in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md).
 Agent conventions: [AGENTS.md](AGENTS.md).
 
+## FAQ
+
+**What exactly does the zero-miss promise cover?** Within the statically analyzable scope of an in-repo TypeScript codebase, the predicted set of affected test files is a superset of the tests that actually fail. That is verified by mutation testing on two independent repos — trpc/trpc 28/28 killed mutants, ardatan/graphql-tools 10/10 — and enforced by the weekly [`acceptance`](.github/workflows/acceptance.yml) workflow, which fails the run and opens an issue if recall drops below 100%. Anything static analysis cannot resolve is listed as a blind spot, and unqualified "zero-miss" wording is banned by project rule.
+
+**Why is precision so low, and is that a bug?** No, it is a measured trade. Mean precision is 0.358 on the 28-mutant tRPC run and 0.331 on the 10-mutant graphql-tools run, so most predicted affected tests do not fail. A controlled ablation that restricted the result to the call channel — a filter on the combined run (`predicted_call` in [`eval/mutation_check.py`](eval/mutation_check.py)) — raised call-channel precision to 0.702 and collapsed recall to 2 of 14 killed mutants. A later attempt to raise precision by pruning pure re-export barrels and narrowing interface fan-out was rejected by its own data because it would have produced guaranteed misses, so precision is no longer an optimization target.
+
+**Does it work on Python?** Yes, at file level, with typed-call upgrades that resolve named-import calls and constructor/annotation-derived method calls, which is enough for the architecture map and a file-level change map. The function-level zero-miss promise stays TypeScript-only. The Python example is the [sgp map](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/sgp-arch.html), including a detected `sgp_utils ⇄ solver_transfer` cycle.
+
+**How do I drive it from an AI coding agent?** Install it as a skill with `npx skills add alloevil/codeblast`, then run `codeblast impact <db> "<symbol>" --json` before editing and `codeblast change <repo> HEAD~1 HEAD --json` after. [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) carries the interpretation rules that matter: never present the impact list as complete while `blind_spot_count > 0`, never drop the `file` channel to shorten it, never claim function-level precision on Python, treat `truncated: true` as "run the full suite", and never report `co_change_hints` as impact.
+
+**Where are the numbers I can check?** Machine-readable claims with metric, method, repro command and evidence path are published at [claims.json](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/claims.json); the raw mutation and PR-replay runs are archived under [`eval/`](eval/) as records of runs that were made (the harness writes to `/tmp`, so the files are manual copies with no commit or version pin, and `mutation_check.py` picks candidates with `ORDER BY RANDOM()` — read them as archived runs, not as one-command regenerations), and the acceptance log with every downgrade and rejected optimization is [intent.md](intent.md).
+
 ## Status & roadmap
 
-M0 graph engine → M1 Impact → M3 architecture map → M4 graph diff + PR bot → M5 precision extensions — **all milestones accepted** (each with a reproducible acceptance script). Single source of truth for design and acceptance criteria: [intent.md](intent.md).
+M0 graph engine → M1 Impact → M3 architecture map → M4 graph diff + PR bot → M5 precision extensions — **all shipped**; two acceptance steps were downgraded rather than passed (M2's verification method, and M3's original "10 minutes, 5 questions" test which was never run — ⚠️ in [intent.md](intent.md)), and the SemArc alignment check was dropped. Single source of truth for design and acceptance criteria: [intent.md](intent.md).
 
 MIT © 2026
+
+---
+
+<p align="center">
+  <a href="https://github.com/oil-oil/beautify-github-readme"><img src="./assets/readme/made-with-beautify.svg" width="300" alt="README made with beautify-github-readme"></a>
+</p>

package/README.zh-CN.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+**codeblast** 是一个确定性代码图谱 CLI，面向 TypeScript / Python 仓库，让开发者和 AI agent 在合并之前就知道改动会炸到哪里。
+
 <p align="center">
   <img src="assets/readme/hero.svg" width="100%" alt="codeblast — deterministic code graph: know what breaks before you merge"/>
 </p>
@@ -13,6 +15,8 @@
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-8b949e?style=flat-square" alt="MIT"/>
 </p>
 
+## 是什么
+
 **codeblast 把仓库解析成一份确定性代码图谱，回答改代码前后最贵的三个问题：**
 > 🔗 **[在线交互演示](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/)** — tRPC / Tabby / sgp 的实时架构图,点开即可三层下钻
 
@@ -24,6 +28,17 @@
 
 给人看（CLI / 交互 HTML / PR 评论），也给 AI agent 用（[SKILL.md](SKILL.md)）——同一份图谱，两个出口。
 
+## 安装
+
+```bash
+npx codeblast demo            # 给当前仓库建图、跑一次 impact 查询、导出架构图
+npm i -g codeblast            # 或全局安装；需要 Node ≥ 22.13（内置 sqlite）或 Bun
+                              # npm 上的版本是 0.3.0；本仓库是 0.3.1（尚未发布）
+
+# 作为 agent skill 安装（Claude Code、Codex、Cursor 等）
+npx skills add alloevil/codeblast
+```
+
 ## 为什么不是又一个 LLM 画图工具
 
 ```
@@ -31,13 +46,13 @@ LLM 画图:    代码 → 模型阅读理解 → 手写图 → 渲染        图
 codeblast:   代码 → tsc/AST 确定性解析 → 图谱 → 投影    图 = 可验证的事实
 ```
 
-**每个节点、每条边、每句结论都带 `file:line` 证据**，可直接打开核对。
+**每个节点和每条静态分析边都带 `file:line` 证据**，可直接打开核对（`co_change` 边在该字段存的是共提交次数而非源码行；文件级节点行号为 1）。
 LLM 在管线里只做一件事：给模块起人话名字——节点归属和边永远来自静态分析。
 
 ## 三个查询
 
 ```bash
-# 建图：TS monorepo / Python 自动识别，hash 增量更新（tRPC 950 文件全量 ~20s）
+# 建图：TS monorepo / Python 自动识别，hash 增量更新（tRPC 957 文件：6248 节点 / 17072 边，样例运行见 SKILL.md）
 codeblast index <repo> --db graph.db
 
 # ① Impact —— 改动前查影响半径
@@ -60,18 +75,36 @@ codeblast cochange <repo> graph.db
 
 复制 [`.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml`](.github/workflows-template/codeblast.yml) 到目标仓库：
 每个 PR 自动评论结构变化 + 影响半径 + 无测试覆盖的新增符号；**无结构变化的 PR 零评论**。
-50 个真实提交回放：42 个正确静默、评论有效率 87.5%。
+50 个真实提交回放：42 个正确静默。评论有效率是诚实的弱项——四轮评审（1–3 轮为独立盲评，第 4 轮由现模型担任评审人）为 25% / 75% / 57% / 20%，
+而作者 agent 自评同一批 8 条评论为 7/8 = 87.5%；两个数字与每轮之后的修复都记在 [intent.md](intent.md)。
 
 ## 精度承诺（有边界，有证据）
 
 - **TypeScript 函数级，静态可分析范围内零漏报。** 验收方法：变异测试对照
-  （真实仓库注入变异 → 全量测试得真实影响集 → 对比预测）。当前基准（tRPC，950 文件）：
+  （真实仓库注入变异 → 全量测试得真实影响集 → 对比预测）。当前基准（tRPC，957 文件）：
   **28/28 变异召回率 100%**，平均精确率 0.36——宁误报不漏报是刻意交换：
-  对照实验中砍掉保守边可将精确率提到 0.70，但召回率跌至 14%。数据在 [`eval/`](eval/)。
+  对照实验中把结果限制在调用链通道（对合并结果做 channel 过滤，见 `eval/mutation_check.py` 的 `predicted_call`）可将精确率提到 0.70，但召回率跌至 14%。数据在 [`eval/`](eval/)。
 - **盲区显式标注。** 盲区 = 静态无法解析到仓内目标的调用/导入（含动态调用、未解析调用、外部依赖解析失败、子进程边界、测试框架全局），并非只有动态调用；
   一律记入 blind_spots 并提示"影响可能被低估"，绝不静默丢弃。
 - **Python 为文件级。** 动态类型使函数级零漏报原理性不成立，不假装做到。
 
+## 什么时候用它
+
+- 你要改 monorepo 里某个导出符号，想在动手**之前**拿到 callsite 清单和必须跑的测试清单，而不是等 CI 红。
+- 你是在改代码的 AI agent：改前 `impact --json` 把 callsite 送进上下文，改后 `change --json` 自查越界与误删。
+- 你在评审 PR，想把结构变化（新增边、重命名符号、无测试覆盖的新符号）从格式噪音里分离出来。
+- 你刚接手一个陌生的 TS / Python 仓库，想要一张每个框每条边都能点开核对源码行的地图。
+- 你需要结论能被不信任本工具的人复核。
+
+## 什么时候不要用它
+
+- **你要 Python 的函数级保证。** Python 是文件级 + 类型化调用增强；鸭子类型使函数级零漏报原理性不成立，我们不假装做到。
+- **你要一份短而准的影响清单。** 全量平均精确率 0.33–0.36；单看 call 通道为 0.702（tRPC 对照实验）到 0.918（graphql-tools）——这是派生区间（两个基准均值的 min/max，数据在 [`eval/`](eval/)），不是单次实测。引擎刻意过近似：`call` 通道优先读，全量清单当作"要跑的测试"。
+- **你的依赖主要走静态分析看不见的路径** —— 动态 `require`、`eval`、子进程边界、未安装的 `node_modules`、测试框架全局。这些一律记入 `blind_spots` 不静默丢弃，但这样的仓库只会得到一张稀疏的图。
+- **你要的是演示用图或协作画布。** `archmap` 输出的是用于导航的事实；要好看的图请把它的 JSON 喂给渲染工具。
+- **你要跨服务 / 跨仓库边，或者 Java。** 图模型预留了节点类型但 v1 不填这些边，Java 明确未实现（见 [intent.md](intent.md)）。
+- **你想让 PR bot 代替评审人。** 它是结构变化信号，四轮评审（1–3 轮独立盲评，第 4 轮现模型自评）的有效率在 20%–75% 之间波动。
+
 ## 给 AI Agent 用
 
 ```
@@ -82,8 +115,26 @@ codeblast cochange <repo> graph.db
 完整契约与解读纪律（含"禁止假装盲区清单完整"）见 [SKILL.md](SKILL.md)。
 Agent 规范另见 [AGENTS.md](AGENTS.md)。
 
+## 常见问题
+
+**零漏报承诺的边界到底是什么？** 在"仓内静态可分析的 TypeScript"范围内，预测的受影响测试文件集是真实失败测试集的超集。验收方式是两个独立仓库上的变异测试——trpc/trpc 28/28 被杀死变异、ardatan/graphql-tools 10/10——并由每周的 [`acceptance`](.github/workflows/acceptance.yml) 工作流把守：召回率低于 100% 即失败并自动开 issue。任何静态无法解析的东西都记入盲区，且项目规则禁止使用无限定的"零漏报"表述。
+
+**精确率这么低是 bug 吗？** 不是，是被测量过的取舍。tRPC 30 变异集上平均精确率 0.358，graphql-tools 10 变异集上 0.331，即多数被预测的测试并不会失败。对照实验中把结果限制在 call 通道（对合并结果做过滤，见 `eval/mutation_check.py` 的 `predicted_call`）可把 call 通道精确率提到 0.702，但召回率跌到 14 个被杀死变异中的 2 个。后来一次"剪纯 re-export barrel + 收窄接口扇出"的精确率优化被自己的数据否决（必然产生漏报），因此精确率不再作为优化目标。
+
+**支持 Python 吗？** 支持，文件级，并带类型化调用增强（具名导入调用、构造赋值/注解推断出的方法调用），足以支撑架构图与文件级 Change Map。函数级零漏报承诺仍为 TypeScript 独有。Python 实例见 [sgp 架构图](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/sgp-arch.html)，其中检出了 `sgp_utils ⇄ solver_transfer` 循环依赖。
+
+**怎么让 AI agent 用它？** 用 `npx skills add alloevil/codeblast` 装成 skill，改前跑 `codeblast impact <db> "<symbol>" --json`，改后跑 `codeblast change <repo> HEAD~1 HEAD --json`。[SKILL.md](SKILL.md) 写明了关键解读纪律：`blind_spot_count > 0` 时禁止声称清单完整、禁止为了缩短清单砍掉 `file` 通道、禁止对 Python 声称函数级精度、`truncated: true` 要建议跑全量测试、`co_change_hints` 不等于影响。
+
+**可核对的数字在哪里？** 带指标、方法、复现命令和证据路径的机器可读清单发布在 [claims.json](https://alloevil.github.io/codeblast/claims.json)；原始变异与 PR 回放数据作为**运行存档**放在 [`eval/`](eval/)（harness 写的是 `/tmp`，这些文件是人工拷贝、不带 commit 或版本标注，候选用 `ORDER BY RANDOM()` 抽取——当存档读，别当作一条命令就能重跑出来的产物）；包含每次降级与被否决优化的验收台账是 [intent.md](intent.md)。
+
 ## 状态与路线
 
-M0 图谱引擎 → M1 Impact → M3 架构图 → M4 图 diff + PR bot → M5 精度扩展，**全部验收通过**（每项含可复现验收脚本）。方案与验收标准的单一事实源：[intent.md](intent.md)。
+M0 图谱引擎 → M1 Impact → M3 架构图 → M4 图 diff + PR bot → M5 精度扩展，**全部交付**；其中两项验收是降级而非通过（M2 的验证方式、M3 原定的"陌生工程师 10 分钟 5 问"从未执行——见 intent.md 的 ⚠️），SemArc 对齐检查已作废。方案与验收标准的单一事实源：[intent.md](intent.md)。
 
 MIT © 2026
+
+---
+
+<p align="center">
+  <a href="https://github.com/oil-oil/beautify-github-readme"><img src="./assets/readme/made-with-beautify.svg" width="300" alt="README made with beautify-github-readme"></a>
+</p>

package/SKILL.md

@@ -52,13 +52,18 @@ codeblast index <repo-root> --db /tmp/graph.db
 ```
 
 Auto-discovers every package `tsconfig.json` in a monorepo and ingests Python via AST. Re-running only
-processes files whose content hash changed. Stdout is one JSON object:
+processes files whose content hash changed. Stdout is one JSON object — this is a real run of
+`codeblast index` against [tRPC](https://github.com/trpc/trpc) at commit `66d0544` with codeblast 0.3.0
+(timing is machine-dependent; the counts are not):
 
 ```json
-{ "db": "...", "seconds": 19.4, "tsconfigs": 12, "files_indexed": 950, "files_skipped": 0,
-  "nodes": 14200, "edges": 31800, "blind_spots": 412, "failures": 0 }
+{ "db": "/tmp/graph.db", "seconds": 5.2, "tsconfigs": 34, "files_indexed": 957, "files_skipped": 0,
+  "nodes": 6248, "edges": 17072, "blind_spots": 14725, "failures": 0 }
 ```
 
+Note that `blind_spots` is routinely large on a real TypeScript monorepo — it counts unresolved and
+dynamic references, not errors. Judge graph health by `failures`, not by `blind_spots`.
+
 Non-zero exit with `failures > 0` means the graph is incomplete — do not query it; report the failure.
 
 ## 2. Impact — what breaks if I change this
@@ -148,8 +153,9 @@ Replayed over 50 real commits: 42 stayed silent, 87.5% of the comments posted we
 
 - TypeScript, function level: **zero missed impact within statically analyzable scope**, checked by
   mutation testing (inject a fault, run the real test suite, compare failing tests to the prediction).
-  Two benchmarks: tRPC (vitest, 950 files) 28/28, graphql-tools (jest, 353 files) 10/10 — precision
-  0.33–0.36 overall, ≈ 0.70–0.92 on the call channel. Both are hard gates in the weekly acceptance
+  Two benchmarks: tRPC (vitest, 957 files) 28/28, graphql-tools (jest, 353 files) 10/10 — precision
+  0.33–0.36 overall; the call channel alone is 0.702–0.918 (derived: min/max of the two per-benchmark
+  means, see eval/). Both are hard gates in the weekly acceptance
   workflow, which opens an issue if either drops below 100%.
 - Conservative edges over-approximate on purpose (an interface method call fans out to every implementer).
 - Python: file-level; typed calls (`b = Builder(); b.method()`, annotated parameters) are function-level;

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "codeblast",
-  "version": "0.3.0",
+  "version": "0.3.1",
   "description": "Know what breaks before you merge — mutation-tested code graph with architecture, change & impact maps. Evidence on every edge. For humans and AI agents.",
   "keywords": [
     "impact-analysis",