Skip to content

Question: Integrating AST/CFG with hound’s semantic driven graph building #37

@mzfr

Description

@mzfr

This is mainly about improving scalability—or, more specifically, reducing token consumption during graph building.

I’ve tried Hound on several projects, and the graph-building process is very token-intensive. I noticed that no local model could handle it effectively. However, a model like Qwen 30B Coder performed well as a “scout,” while a Qwen3 “thinking” model worked well as a “strategist.”

I read the paper, and the decision to avoid AST logic makes sense. However, have you explored a hybrid approach?

I’m suggesting this mainly from a scalability perspective: if we precompute and build an AST/CFG-like structure to capture basic elements (fn calls, imports, reads/writes), and then send only targeted micro-cards to the LLM for intent analysis, it might significantly reduce token usage. In this setup, the LLM would still handle semantic reasoning but would operate on pre-extracted structures.

In my view, this approach could preserve Hound’s agent-driven design while improving efficiency. I just wanted to ask whether you’ve tried this and if you have any suggestions or input.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or requestquestionFurther information is requested

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions