Graph Evolution
Builds Trailmark code graphs at two source snapshots and computes a
structural diff. Surfaces security-relevant changes that text-level
diffs miss: new attack paths, complexity shifts, blast radius growth,
taint propagation changes, and privilege boundary modifications.
When to Use
- Comparing two git refs to understand what structurally changed
- Auditing a range of commits for security-relevant evolution
- Detecting new attack paths created by code changes
- Finding functions whose blast radius or complexity grew silently
- Identifying taint propagation changes across refactors
- Pre-release structural comparison (tag-to-tag or branch-to-branch)
When NOT to Use
- Line-level code review (use
differential-review for text-diff analysis)
- Single-snapshot analysis (use the
trailmark skill directly)
- Diagram generation from a single snapshot (use the
diagramming-code skill)
- Mutation testing triage (use the
genotoxic skill)
Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|
| "We just need the structural diff, skip pre-analysis" | Without pre-analysis, you miss taint changes, blast radius growth, and privilege boundary shifts | Run engine.preanalysis() on both snapshots |
| "Text diff covers what changed" | Text diffs miss new attack paths, transitive complexity shifts, and subgraph membership changes | Use structural diff to complement text diff |
| "Only added nodes matter" | Removed security functions and shifted privilege boundaries are equally dangerous | Review removals and modifications, not just additions |
| "Low-severity structural changes can be ignored" | INFO-level changes (dead code removal) can mask removed security checks | Classify every change, review removals for replaced functionality |
| "One snapshot's graph is enough for comparison" | Single-snapshot analysis can't detect evolution — you need both before and after | Always build and export both graphs |
| "Tool isn't installed, I'll compare manually" | Manual comparison misses what graph analysis catches | Install trailmark first |
Prerequisites
trailmark must be installed. If uv run trailmark fails, run:
DO NOT fall back to "manual comparison" or reading source files as a
substitute for running trailmark. The tool must be installed and used
programmatically. If installation fails, report the error.
Quick Start
# Compare two git refs (e.g., tags, branches, commits)
# 1. Build graphs at each snapshot
# 2. Run pre-analysis on both
# 3. Compute structural diff
# 4. Generate report
# Step-by-step: see Workflow below
Decision Tree
├─ Need to understand what each metric means?
│ └─ Read: references/evolution-metrics.md
│
├─ Need the report output format?
│ └─ Read: references/report-format.md
│
├─ Already have two graph JSON exports?
│ └─ Jump to Phase 3 (run native diff + graph_diff.py)
│
└─ Starting from two git refs?
└─ Start at Phase 1
Workflow
Phase 1: Create Snapshots
Use git worktrees to get clean copies of each ref without disturbing
the working tree.
# Create temp directories for worktrees
BEFORE_DIR=$(mktemp -d)
AFTER_DIR=$(mktemp -d)
# Create worktrees (run from repo root)
git worktree add "$BEFORE_DIR" {before_ref}
git worktree add "$AFTER_DIR" {after_ref}
If comparing two directories instead of git refs, skip this phase and
use the directory paths directly in Phase 2.
Phase 2: Build Graphs and Run Pre-Analysis
Build Trailmark graphs for both snapshots and run pre-analysis on each.
Pre-analysis computes blast radius, taint propagation, privilege
boundaries, and entrypoint enumeration.
from trailmark.query.api import QueryEngine
def build_and_export(target_dir, output_path, language="auto"):
"""Build graph, run pre-analysis, export JSON."""
engine = QueryEngine.from_directory(target_dir, language=language)
engine.preanalysis()
json_str = engine.to_json()
with open(output_path, "w") as f:
f.write(json_str)
return engine.summary()
import tempfile, os
work_dir = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="trailmark_evolution_")
before_json = os.path.join(work_dir, "before_graph.json")
after_json = os.path.join(work_dir, "after_graph.json")
before_summary = build_and_export(
"{before_dir}", before_json
)
after_summary = build_and_export(
"{after_dir}", after_json
)
Verify both graphs built successfully by checking the summary output.
If either fails, rerun with an explicit language or comma-separated list
instead of auto.
Phase 3: Compute Structural Diff
Run both:
- Trailmark's native structural diff for nodes, edges, and entrypoints
- The plugin's
graph_diff.py helper for subgraph membership changes
Using the same work_dir from Phase 2:
trailmark diff --json "{before_dir}" "{after_dir}" > "{work_dir}/trailmark_diff.json" || \
uv run trailmark diff --json "{before_dir}" "{after_dir}" > "{work_dir}/trailmark_diff.json"
uv run {baseDir}/scripts/graph_diff.py \
--before "{before_json}" \
--after "{after_json}" > "{work_dir}/subgraph_diff.json"
If either diff command fails or writes an empty JSON file, stop and report the
error instead of continuing to Phase 4.
The native Trailmark diff contains:
| Key | Contents |
|---|
summary_delta | Changes in node/edge/entrypoint counts |
nodes.added | New functions, classes, methods |
nodes.removed | Deleted functions, classes, methods |
nodes.modified | Functions with changed CC, params, line span |
edges.added | New call/inheritance/import relationships |
edges.removed | Deleted relationships |
entrypoints | Added, removed, and modified entrypoints |
The subgraph diff contains:
| Key | Contents |
|---|
subgraphs | Per-subgraph membership changes (tainted, high_blast_radius, etc.) |
Phase 4: Interpret Diff and Generate Report
Read both diff JSON files and generate a security-focused markdown
report.
See references/report-format.md [blocked] for
the full template.
Interpretation priorities (highest to lowest):
- New tainted paths — nodes entering the
tainted subgraph,
especially if they also appear in added edges targeting sensitive
functions
- Privilege boundary changes — new or removed trust transitions
from the native entrypoint/edge diff plus the subgraph diff
- Attack surface growth — new entrypoints, especially
untrusted_external, from trailmark_diff.json
- Blast radius increases — nodes entering
high_blast_radius
- Complexity spikes — CC increases > 3 on tainted or
entrypoint-reachable nodes
- Structural additions — new nodes and edges (review needed)
- Structural removals — verify removed security functions were
replaced
Cross-reference structural changes with git diff {before_ref}..{after_ref}
to add source-level context to findings.
Severity classification:
| Severity | Structural Signal |
|---|
| CRITICAL | New tainted path to sensitive function, removed auth boundary |
| HIGH | New entrypoint + high blast radius, large CC increase on tainted node |
| MEDIUM | New trust-boundary-crossing edges, moderate CC increase |
| LOW | Added nodes without entrypoint reachability |
| INFO | Dead code removal, complexity reductions |
For detailed metric definitions, see
references/evolution-metrics.md [blocked].
Phase 5: Clean Up
Remove git worktrees after the report is written:
git worktree remove "{before_dir}"
git worktree remove "{after_dir}"
Diff Reference
trailmark diff --json BEFORE AFTER
uv run {baseDir}/scripts/graph_diff.py [OPTIONS]
Use trailmark diff for:
- Node/edge changes
- Added/removed/modified entrypoints
- Human-readable structural diff reports
Use graph_diff.py for:
- Subgraph membership changes derived from
engine.preanalysis()
tainted, high_blast_radius, privilege_boundary, and related sets
| Argument | Default | Description |
|---|
--before | required | Path to the "before" graph JSON |
--after | required | Path to the "after" graph JSON |
--indent | 2 | JSON output indentation |
graph_diff.py input format: Trailmark JSON exports from engine.to_json().
graph_diff.py output: JSON structural diff for nodes, edges, and subgraphs.
Quality Checklist
Before delivering the report:
Integration
trailmark skill:
Phase 2 uses the trailmark API for graph building and pre-analysis.
All trailmark query patterns work on either snapshot's engine.
differential-review skill:
Use graph-evolution for structural analysis, differential-review for
line-level code review. The two are complementary — graph-evolution
finds attack paths that text diffs miss, while differential-review
provides git blame context and micro-adversarial analysis.
genotoxic skill:
If graph-evolution reveals new high-CC tainted nodes, feed them to
genotoxic for mutation testing triage.
diagramming-code skill:
Generate before/after diagrams to visualize structural changes.
Use call-graph or data-flow diagrams focused on changed nodes.
Supporting Documentation
- references/evolution-metrics.md [blocked] —
What each structural metric means and why it matters for security
- references/report-format.md [blocked] —
Report template, severity classification, and example findings