NEXORASAGE
React / TypeScript · Local-first · MCP

Architecture
before action.

Understand a repository, investigate React risks, compare code and review a component before bringing it into your project. SAGE turns that evidence into focused context for developers and AI coding agents.

Local analysis. CLI and MCP. No hosted code upload required.

ATLAS / GENOMEMERGE INTELLIGENCEREACT + STATE FLOWCONTEXTOS / MCPPROGRESSIVE HITL
More than a dependency graph

See structure. Follow behavior.
Review the rules that apply.

Existing analysis and governance surfaces work from repository evidence. Their results help you choose where to inspect and what to verify before a change.

MERGE INTELLIGENCE

Review what comes with the code

Build bounded dependency packages, inspect missing files and target conflicts, and review static adoption recommendations in a decision cockpit. AI task packs carry verification and rollback requirements.

Explore component adoption review
GENOME + COMPARISON

Compare structure, not just filenames

Use symbol DNA and structural fingerprints for clone discovery, variation comparison and nanometric structural diff. Similar structure is review evidence, not proof of identical behavior.

Explore the structural model
01 / ATLAS

Architecture and source context

Map projects, symbols, imports and routes. Inspect indexed source context and dependency relationships through the same architecture model.

Explore the architecture
02 / ORACLE + POLICY

Blueprints without blind enforcement

Post-Atlas Oracle proposes an architectural blueprint. Applicable policy and HITL govern enforcement; a guessed folder name is not enough.

How Oracle works
03 / REACT

Contracts beyond syntax

Inspect React Compiler readiness, hook and render-risk signals, and Next.js server/client boundaries. Static findings keep their confidence and runtime-proof needs.

React capability evidence
04 / STATE FLOW

Follow state and data relationships

Review static state/data flow in a project or focus the query on a file or symbol. Recorded transitions are evidence to inspect, not executed runtime behavior.

Agent inspection workflow
05 / CONTEXTOS + MCP

Give an agent a focused starting point

Request scoped context, change signals, dependency impact, static test-impact candidates and upstream cause traces instead of an undifferentiated code dump.

Connect a target-safe agent
06 / EVIDENCE + HITL

Keep findings separate from permission

Review architecture drift, circular dependencies and unreferenced-code candidates with their evidence. A finding does not authorize deletion, a patch or a merge.

Read the evidence model
WATCHDOG + FRESHNESS

Follow a change without hiding stale evidence

Watchdog refreshes bounded changed-source evidence and exposes active signals. Test-impact candidates, deferred proof and source drift stay explicit rather than becoming a false all-clear.

Follow the live focus loop
Merge and variation intelligence

A component brings
more than its source file.

Before adopting code from a declared variation or companion, review its dependency closure and target fit. SAGE's Merge layer assembles static evidence and an actionable review plan; it does not blindly copy code or resolve Git conflicts.

Check Merge evidence and scope
  1. Package the dependency surface.Identify required files, unresolved internal paths and external packages within the declared closure bound.
  2. Inspect integration requirements.Review target conflicts and available provider, router, i18n and browser-API harness needs.
  3. Review the recommendation and its reasons.The cockpit distinguishes Import Now, Import With Review and Do Not Import Yet. Missing compiler or runtime evidence remains missing.
  4. Carry a verification and rollback plan.Generated task packs support human-reviewed adoption; a recommendation is not mutation approval or proven runtime compatibility.
For AI-assisted engineering

Context is useful.
Unbounded authority is not.

SAGE is not another coding agent. It supplies repository context and static evidence to the developer or agent already doing the work.

Read the progressive HITL runbook
  1. Name the target.Keep the repository, selected projects and acquired evidence explicit.
  2. Focus the investigation.Inspect a file or symbol, follow state/dependencies and ask which rules apply.
  3. Review the change context.Use existing impact, test-impact and upstream-trace tools. Missing evidence stays visible.
  4. Verify before action.Static candidates are not executed tests. Follow applicable human approval and native verification requirements.
Reproducible, bounded examples

Check the source behind the result.

Start with a real refactoring decision, then inspect the source and the evidence behind it. These cases demonstrate selected capabilities, not a repository-wide score.

Clone discovery + source context + focused state orientation

Share the profile code. Preserve the behavior contract.

In Bulletproof React's Next Pages and React/Vite applications, SAGE grouped matching profile components, mutation hooks and input schemas. Symbol search and source-bound inspection located the consumer; focused State Flow orientation exposed the hook's recorded references and unresolved calls.

Source review turns those candidates into a concrete checklist: retain user-data refresh, caller success feedback and pending/completion bindings. Auth and API integration still differ. This supports a sharing decision; it does not approve a merge.

Explore the profile-sharing decision
Run scope and verification

This SAGE v1.4.0 case uses two actually indexed applications from a frozen checkout. The configured MAIN application was not acquired; the run's quality gate was FAIL. Those results remain in the full case, not a target-defect verdict. No target tests or components were executed. Merge had zero candidates, and static orientation did not resolve the complete state chain.

Inspect the selected evidence and limits
Dependency + symbol orientation

Before changing a store, find its consumers.

On a frozen Zustand checkout, SAGE located createStore in src/vanilla.ts and returned src/index.ts, src/react.ts and src/traditional.ts as dependents. Each was checked against the source.

Follow the actual demo
What this example proves — and does not

This SAGE v1.4.0 example demonstrates dependency and symbol orientation in the selected source scope. The full case retains unsuccessful checks and missing test coverage. No target tests or components were executed, and an empty candidate list does not prove no tests exist.

Read the scope, checks and unresolved results
Architecture + policy calibration

A dynamic route is not a domain layer.

The preserved Dub example separates a Next.js [domain] route from a DDD layer. Current static controls check generalized layer matching and policy applicability before recommending a refactor.

Read the source-checked case
Historical evidence, current controls

The case distinguishes the old v1.0.4 finding from current v1.4.0 static checks. It is not a fresh full Dub scan, a clean-repository verdict or a precision measurement.

Reproduce the static controls

For the wider product boundary, see the claims/evidence matrix. Runtime-only behavior, equal-depth polyglot analysis and full SAST replacement are not current claims.

Try it on your repository

Start with an explicit target.

Acquire the public source and inspect prerequisites. The Quickstart explains local setup, analysis scope, outputs and connecting an agent.

Open the Quickstart