Impact analysis example
What breaks when you change LangChain.js (libs/langchain-core)?
Real arc impact output on LangChain.js (libs/langchain-core) — same structure as the homepage demo. Know blast radius before you merge.
Project: LangChain.js (libs/langchain-core) · Score: 66.4/100 (Moderate technical debt) · 248 modules · 973 edges
Engineering decision simulation
Validation procedure 01 · merge vs. hold before output
Before arc impact
You plan a change to a high fan-in module in LangChain.js (libs/langchain-core). Would you merge without knowing blast radius?
Typical answer: hold — need dependency context.
After arc impact
Structured output below: score, hotspots, corridors, and high-risk modules — same field schema as the homepage proof.
Decision: confirm hold, narrow change, or inspect paths first.
Published as part of the validation record. Run locally: arc impact <file-you-are-changing>
Architectural Risk Map
Where risk accumulates by control surface — drill down Surface → Substrate → Mechanism → Evidence.
See control surfaces →Dependency evidence
Architecture visualization
Diagrams are generated from ArcSight analysis data. Dependency graph and risk map show key modules; subsystem view shows high-level structure.
Architecture score & metrics
Score: 66.4/100 · Stability: 10/100 · Status: at_risk · Confidence: 100%
- Dependency cycles: 88
- Layer violations: 3
- Duplicate authorities: 49
Modules to inspect
One row per module. Fan-in is direct dependents. Blast radius is downstream modules reachable from that file.
- src/messages/base24 dependents
- src/messages/ai23 dependents
- src/messages/content21 dependents
- src/load/serializable15 dependents
- src/messages/utils14 dependents
- src/messages/block_translators12 dependents
- src/messages/tool12 dependents
- src/messages/block_translators/utils12 dependents
- src/messages/content134 modules
- src/load/serializable134 modules
- src/messages/base131 modules
- src/messages/ai131 modules
- src/messages/utils131 modules
- src/messages/block_translators131 modules
- src/messages/tool131 modules
- src/messages/message131 modules
| Module | Fan-in | Blast | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/messages/content | 21 | 134 | CRITICAL |
| src/load/serializable | 15 | 134 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/base | 24 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/ai | 23 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/utils | 14 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/block_translators | 12 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/tool | 12 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/message | 10 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/errors | 6 | 131 | CRITICAL |
| src/messages/block_translators/utils | 12 | CRITICAL |
Architectural gravity centers
src/messages/content— concentrates too many responsibilitiessrc/messages/content— shared utility hubsrc/load/serializable— concentrates too many responsibilitiessrc/load/serializable— shared utility hubsrc/messages/base— concentrates too many responsibilities
CLI workflow
Scan → Fix → Finish → Watch. Nothing else required.
arc scanFind issuesarc fixApply fixesarc finishResolve remainingarc watchKeep clean
Key takeaways
- •Structural scan reports dependency cycles — inspect impact paths before refactors that cross module boundaries.
- •High fan-in modules are change-risk zones; run
arc explain <path>before refactoring. - •Run the full workflow (analyze, hotspots, explain, impact, snapshot, drift) in your repo for deterministic architecture insights.
Run ArcSight on your repo
Install the CLI and run analyze, then hotspots and explain for the same workflow.
This case study is generated from ArcSight analysis data. View short analysis. View all analyses