StackMap
Subscribe

codeflow vs repowise

Paste a GitHub URL or drop a local folder → interactive architecture map in the browser: dependency graph, blast radius, health grade, security scan. Single index.html, zero install. — versus — Codebase intelligence for AI and humans: deterministic code-health scores calibrated on real defects, graph-aware refactoring plans agents can execute, auto-docs and git analytics over 9 MCP tools.

The curated verdict

Both grade codebase health from graph structure. Repowise gives deterministic, defect-calibrated scores and agent-executable refactoring plans; codeflow gives an instant in-browser A–F and heatmaps.

codeflowrepowise
Stars4.6k3.8k
Forks713460
LanguageHTMLPython
LicenseAGPL-3.0
Last activity6 days agotoday
Topicscodingcoding
Curated connections35

codeflow — the curator's take

The fastest 'what am I looking at?' tool for an unfamiliar repo: zero install, code never leaves the browser, and blast-radius answers 'what breaks if I touch this?' before you refactor. The JSON export and README-card GitHub Action make it more than a toy. NOT compiler-grade: dependency edges come from lightweight in-browser parsing across 30+ languages, so trust it for orientation, not for exhaustive call-graph truth — agents needing tree-sitter-accurate graphs should use code-review-graph or codegraph-mcp. Big repos also eat GitHub API rate limits fast without a token.

repowise — the curator's take

The interesting bet: defect-risk scoring with NO LLM — 25 deterministic markers calibrated against a real defect corpus (published ROC AUC 0.74), indexed in seconds, then the same dependency graph generates concrete refactoring plans (split the god class, break the cycle) your coding agent executes. Health→locate→fix as one loop is what linters and dashboards don't do. NOT a pure-open play: AGPL-3.0 with a hosted-teams funnel, and benchmark claims are self-published — reproduce them on your repo before quoting them; overlaps only partially with symbol-level code-graph MCPs.