Potpie Context Graph
Turn code, documents, tickets, and decisions into a living graph of your organization. Keep knowledge connected as it changes—and give every agent the context to act.
Connect your engineering stack
GitHub
GitLab
Jira
Linear
Confluence
Azure DevOps
Microsoft 365
SAP+ Your internal systemsBring in code, boards, documents, decisions, and infrastructure. Potpie turns that material into structured context—with its source, meaning, and relationships intact.
Bring in the source
Extract entities & facts
Resolve the relationships
router.use('/members', identityService)
identityService.requires('verified_email')
identityService.emits('member.invited')
Code becomes a service, its dependencies, and the behavior it implements—not just a searchable file.
Resolve the same service, feature, or decision across different sources into one connected view.
Keep the source passage and its revision, so every relationship can be inspected and understood.
A service doesn’t exist in isolation. It implements a requirement, follows a decision, depends on other services, and ships through a release.
Potpie connects those relationships across tools and teams. Digitized domain knowledge becomes part of the same model as code, boards, documents, and operational artifacts.
Explore the relationshipsTrace interfaces, dependencies, and the systems affected by a change.
Carry business intent and architectural decisions into engineering work.
Keep the requirement, ticket, code, review, and release connected.
A new decision should not leave an old requirement behind. Trace what changed, identify the affected artifacts, and carry the approved context forward.
The retention decision no longer matches the ticket and runbook.
Data retention
30 daysData retention
90 daysApply the decision to its linked context.
Acceptance criteria still specify 30 days.
The documented policy still says 30 days.
Implementation and release remain separate.
Policy v1 · Original evidence retained
Conflicting evidence is surfaced for a decision—not silently overwritten because one source is newer.
Context updates do not deploy code. Keep what was planned, what changed, and what actually shipped distinct.
An agent should start with the relationships that matter: the code, the decision behind it, the work already in motion, and the evidence it can trust.
Showing the plan a change workflow.
Add organization SSO. What needs to change?
The service already separates provider verification from session creation. Extend that boundary instead of introducing a second sign-in flow.
The plan is grounded in the service, specification, architecture decision, and linked work—not the current file alone.
Follow relevant relationships instead of repeatedly searching disconnected tools.
Connect each answer to its source, revision, and the decisions that shaped it.
Make the next task aware of what changed, without rebuilding the context from scratch.
More data is not the goal. The goal is current, connected, traceable context that helps people and agents get the work right.
Is the relevant context current and present?
Measure source-to-graph update lag, source coverage, and the age of unresolved changes. A fresh graph is only useful if the necessary sources are represented.
Can each claim be explained and reconciled?
Check provenance coverage, conflicting claims, and resolution time. Track which context was corrected and retain the history behind the change.
Does the right context lead to better work?
Evaluate retrieval relevance and source-grounded answers against representative tasks. Compare verified outcomes, tokens, and latency on the same task set.
Connected entities
30,505Across the recorded graphActive claims
24,566Current recorded relationshipsContext searches
702During the usage periodDocuments retrieved
175During the usage period30,937 total claims
Invalidated claims retain history; they are not a measure of error rate or a count of automatically resolved discrepancies.
Change requests include proposals, not only completed updates.
Reporting coverage across 703 agent turns
549 of 703 turns
674 of 703 turns
367 of 703 turns
Coverage describes what was recorded, not the accuracy of the context or the success of a task.
Evaluate the workflow, end to end. Pair graph and retrieval metrics with verified task outcomes. Compare like-for-like work before claiming improvements in speed, cost, or quality.
A shared context layer should make the evidence easier to inspect—not make authority harder to understand.
Keep source references and revisions with the knowledge they support. Distinguish recorded facts, inferred relationships, and unresolved questions.
Retain change history and superseded claims. Let reviewers follow what changed, what it affects, and why the new context replaced the old.
Connect approved sources with read-only defaults. Keep write access, code review, and release approval within your organization’s boundaries.
The graph is the foundation. Here’s what that means for your sources, agents, and workflows.
A connected model of your organization’s engineering knowledge. It brings together entities—such as services, requirements, tickets, decisions, and environments—and the relationships between them. Claims retain their source evidence, so people and agents can inspect why a connection exists.
Search helps find a relevant passage. A graph also helps follow the relationships around it: the decision behind a requirement, the service that implements it, the work item tracking the change, and the deployment configuration it affects. Retrieval can use both the source material and those connections.
Yes. Approved APIs, connectors, and parsers bring in the sources your organization uses. Custom schemas map your domain’s entities and relationships, while documents, standards, SOPs, and architecture decisions become structured, source-linked context. The integration scope is defined with your team.
The disagreement is traced to the affected claims and linked artifacts. A reviewed decision can supersede outdated context while retaining the earlier evidence and change history. When the sources do not establish which claim is authoritative, the conflict needs review rather than an assumed answer.
No. Updating context is distinct from executing a code change or a release. Agents can use the updated context to propose work, but code review, write permissions, and deployment approvals remain part of your workflow. Deployment configuration alone does not prove what is running.
Evaluate coverage, freshness, source traceability, conflict handling, and retrieval relevance. Then compare representative agent tasks using verified outcomes, time, and token usage. Activity counts show how the system is used; they do not independently prove accuracy or productivity gains.
Potpie can run within your VPC, with approved source access and read-only defaults. Your team defines the data scope, integration permissions, and workflows that can write back. Book a demo to review the deployment and governance model for your environment.
See how your sources, your systems, and your organization’s knowledge come together in Potpie.
Explore your context with us
