tracemint.
Platform/Architecture
Components, scopes & relationships

A codebase.
A clearer picture.

Explore an AI-generated view of your application architecture. Move between scopes, inspect components and follow the evidence behind the relationships.

Request a demo
An application, at the right scale

Understand the whole.
Inspect the part.

Synthetic example · authored relationships

Atlas Notes

Application landscape
Web client
Request
Application boundary
Application APIRoutes · policies · services
Background work
Job runnerBackground processing
Repository access
Notes store

Application API

Within the API scope
Request boundary
HTTP routesApplication entry points
Identity & intent
Access policyPermission decisions
↔
Notes serviceApplication behavior
Repository interface
Note repositoryStorage boundary

Notes service

Component relationships
Called fromHTTP routes
Reader + note identifier
Notes servicereadVisible(actorId, noteId)
Component context
Access policyUpstream authorization
Note repositoryDirect dependency
TraceMint Architecture workspace with illustrative project data.
TraceMint interfaceIllustrative demo dataView full size — opens image in a new tab↗
How it fits your workflow

Map the system.
Inspect the component.

01 / Architecture

Start with the whole

Bind the analysis to the intended source and get an application-level view without treating thousands of individual files as equally important architecture nodes.

02 / Architecture

Move into a scope

Navigate the component hierarchy to investigate the part of the system that matters.

03 / Architecture

Inspect the reasoning

Review component details, source references and the uncertainty in inferred relationships.

Evaluation brief / Architecture

Use the map as a hypothesis.
Keep the source in reach.

Architecture analysis is an AI interpretation of a particular source snapshot. The evaluation should test navigation at repository scale and the evidence behind the relationships—not only the visual diagram.

Structure / 01

Can a large repository be understood without a file-node hairball?

Move from the system view into an application scope and then a component, using hierarchy to keep thousands of files from competing as equal nodes.

System view
Major application and storage boundaries
Application view
Services, policies and request paths
Component view
Focused dependencies and source context
Decision boundary

The navigation model is designed to reduce visual complexity; it is not a fixed runtime SLA for repositories of every size.

Acceptance check

Use a representative monorepo or multi-service repository and confirm that the scopes match how your engineers discuss the system.

Provenance / 02

Can a reviewer trace a relationship back to source?

Open a component or edge and inspect its source reference, observed code and the model’s interpretation as separate layers.

Reference
File and source location behind the relationship
Observation
What the selected source actually shows
Interpretation
The architectural meaning proposed for review
Decision boundary

A source reference supports an inference; it does not convert every architectural edge into a deterministic fact.

Acceptance check

Sample important and surprising relationships with a developer who knows the codebase, including at least one rejected inference.

Uncertainty / 03

How does the map behave when the source is ambiguous?

Confidence and review signals should help prioritize inspection. Missing context and uncertain relationships must remain visible rather than being drawn with false certainty.

Review signal
Confidence belongs to the inference being inspected
Incomplete context
Reported as a limitation, not silently filled in
Human action
Accept, question or revisit the interpretation
Decision boundary

Confidence is not a probability that the whole architecture is correct, nor proof of runtime topology.

Acceptance check

Choose areas with indirection, generated code or framework wiring and inspect how uncertainty is represented.

Freshness / 04

Which source snapshot does the picture describe?

Treat the result as an analysis of the available source at a point in time. Review source identity and rerun the analysis after material architectural changes.

Input
Repository source made available to the analysis
Model profile
Quality depends on the selected model and runtime
Lifecycle
Re-analysis is required to reflect changed code
Decision boundary

Source architecture does not automatically prove deployment topology, network reachability or live runtime state.

Acceptance check

Record the source revision and model profile used for the evaluation, then compare a meaningful code change.

Bring to the evaluation
  • A representative large repository
  • An engineer who knows its boundaries
  • Two relationships to verify deeply
Architecture / Capabilities

Navigate the structure.
Question the inference.

In focus

A hierarchy, not a hairball

Separate the overall system from its internal components. Overview and detail have different jobs.

AI-based interpretation

Use model-driven analysis to explain architectural structure. Inferred relationships remain reviewable rather than unquestionable facts.

Built for investigation

Search, navigate and inspect the map alongside its supporting source references.

Coverage has a receipt

Review total, inventoried, selected, deep-read and omitted file counts with pipeline warnings. A partial inventory or unresolved scope does not become complete because a diagram was produced.

A second read is still an inference

A separate AI evidence pass challenges proposed components and relationships against selected source excerpts. Unsupported claims can be removed and uncertainty remains visible; supported relationships are still inferred rather than independently verified runtime facts.

Return without losing the baseline

Open retained snapshots, compare semantic changes, refresh a current scope or run a deeper challenge pass. Read each result against its source identity and model profile.

Before you evaluate.

Is this a diagram for every file?

No. The architecture view is organized around scopes and components. Individual source references support the interpretation instead of becoming a node for every file.

Is every connection certain?

Architecture analysis can contain uncertain or incomplete inferences. Inspect the supporting source references and review signals before relying on a relationship.

Does complete mean every file was opened by the model?

No. Complete means the admitted inventory and pipeline contract finished without unresolved coverage warnings. Files remain supporting evidence rather than graph nodes, and only selected files receive a deep AI read.

What reaches the configured model?

Bounded, redacted source excerpts selected for the architecture stages. Unsafe paths, binary or bulk content and files outside the admitted root are refused. The selected deployment must still permit its model endpoint to process those excerpts.

AI Code SecurityAI PentestingAutonomous Triage
Plan your evaluation

See Architecture
in your workflow.

Tell us what you want to evaluate. Our team will review your request and contact you to agree the scope and arrange a time.

Request a demo