The comprehension layer for AI-written code: authored-intent blocks, a repo-wide explainer model, and an architectural drift gate. Local, MCP-native.
Sivru MCP server has 9 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions, but quality is uneven. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (sivru_search, sivru_checkup, sivru_block_extract, sivru_block_edit, sivru_block_autofix, sivru_feedback_acknowledge, sivru_feedback_false_positive, sivru_feedback_suggest, sivru_explain). Descriptions are present but brief (avg ~100 chars, below the 194-char baseline). Parameter descriptions exist but lack detail on constraints, formats, and valid ranges. No output schemas documented. Error handling guidance absent. Write operations (sivru_block_edit, sivru_block_autofix, sivru_feedback_*) lack confirmation/dry-run patterns. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) visible in source.
Apply the YAML-trap autofixer (E237/E238) to one file
Edit an authored-intent block in a file (form-driven editor with conflict detection)
Extract authored-intent blocks from files in a repository
Run the checkup against a repository and return a structured report of memory file audits including claude-age, dead-reference, and skill-tools-drift checks
Build and query the codebase explainer model for architectural analysis
Acknowledge a diagnostic finding to suppress it from future reports
Report a diagnostic as a false positive
Suggest a rewrite or improvement for a diagnostic
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields without knowing response structure.
Write operations (sivru_block_edit, sivru_block_autofix, sivru_feedback_*) lack confirmation/dry-run patterns. Agents cannot preview changes before committing destructive edits.
Parameter descriptions lack constraint details. 'format' enum in sivru_block_extract is documented, but most params (e.g., 'path', 'query', 'repoRoot') have minimal guidance on valid ranges, formats, or examples.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 47 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Search the codebase using BM25 and cosine similarity ranking with gitignore-aware walking and code-aware chunking
No error handling guidance. Tools do not document what errors are retryable, user-fixable, or fatal, or how to recover from failures.
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) visible in source. LLMs cannot distinguish safe reads from destructive writes without explicit hints.