37%
higher quality than agent exploration
The graph maps the code; reading it beats sending agents
Same question, same project, two windows: graph-first answered “how does this AI pipeline work” in 2m3s for $1.02 and scored 24 of 25 — against Explore agents’ 5m52s, ~$2.50, and 17.5 of 25. The graph cited 8+ files with line counts where agents cited one.
The graph queried structural relationships, then read the exact files it surfaced — and found what broad exploration missed: a 9-step pipeline (not a tidy 4-phase model), safety guardrails running first at step 0, first-class cost governance, and a staged-write cache. The Explore agent returned a plausible summary that flattened all of it.
The lesson the test corrected its own hypothesis on: agents aren’t the depth layer — reading is. The graph tells you where; reading the files it found tells you what and why, in the same context, with no agent spawn. Agents are for parallel writes and overflow, not for understanding code.
- Graph finds the files; reading them — not spawning agents — gets the depth
- Found safety-first ordering and cost governance agents missed entirely
- 2.85× faster, ~2.5× cheaper, 8× more files cited with line counts
This is what Pro delivers.
Not features for their own sake — measurable leverage on every session.