Graft vs planning-with-files
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- Pick Graft for: turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual. Pick planning-with-files for: persistent file-based planning and context recovery for AI coding agents and long-running tasks.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
G
Graftopen-source
Turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual understanding specific to your codebase.
p
planning-with-filesopen-source
Persistent file-based planning and context recovery for AI coding agents and long-running tasks
Metrics
| Graft | planning-with-files | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 9.5k | 27.3k |
| Star velocity /mo | 870 | 590 |
| Commits (90d) | 506 | 228 |
| Releases (6m) | 0 | 10 |
| Downloads (30d, npm + PyPI) | — | 2.7K |
| Overall score | 0.7068809558403568 | 0.7798501915116138 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Graft or planning-with-files?
- planning-with-files has more GitHub stars (27,264 vs 9,520).
- Which is more actively developed, Graft or planning-with-files?
- Graft had more commits in the last 90 days (506 vs 228).
- Should I use Graft or planning-with-files?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.