docs: remove viral claim from titan paradigm LinkedIn reference (#126)

* feat: add codegraph path for A→B symbol pathfinding

Add `codegraph path <from> <to>` — BFS shortest-path search on the
call graph. Given two symbol names, finds the shortest call chain
with hop count, intermediate nodes, edge kinds, and alternate path
count. Supports --reverse, --max-depth, --kinds, --from-file/--to-file,
-T, -j, -k flags. Exposed as symbol_path MCP tool.

Impact: 4 functions changed, 3 affected

* docs: add Titan Paradigm use case, update docs with roles/co-change/path

- Create docs/use-cases/titan-paradigm.md — maps Johannes R.'s multi-agent
  codebase cleanup architecture (RECON, GAUNTLET, GLOBAL SYNC, STATE MACHINE)
  to codegraph commands, roadmap items, and post-LLM-integration recommendations

- Update roadmap/BACKLOG.md: mark #4 (node classification), #9 (git change
  coupling), #1 (dead code), #2 (shortest path), #12 (execution flow) as DONE;
  add 6 new Titan Paradigm-inspired items (#21-#26): composite audit, batch
  querying, triage priority queue, change validation predicates, graph
  snapshots, MCP orchestration tools

- Update README.md: add roles + co-change to features table, differentiators,
  commands section, agent template, common flags, comparison table; update MCP
  tool count 18 → 19

- Update docs/recommended-practices.md: update MCP tool count and tool list,
  add roles/co-change/path to CLAUDE.md template and developer workflow, add
  "Understand architectural roles" and "Surface hidden coupling" sections,
  add co-change step to setup checklist

- Add full examples with real output for roles, co-change, and path to
  docs/examples/CLI.md and docs/examples/MCP.md

- Update GitHub repo description with new capabilities

* docs: restore Architecture Refactoring phase, fix references

- Restore Phase 3 (Architectural Refactoring) to ROADMAP
- Renumber phases 4-8 and all cross-references
- Fix MCP tool count per Greptile review

* fix: correct MCP tool counts and backlog ID collisions

Address Greptile review comments on #121:
- Update MCP tool counts from 18/19 to 21 (22 in multi-repo mode)
  across README, recommended-practices, dogfood skill, titan-paradigm
- Add missing execution_flow and list_entry_points to tool enumeration
- Renumber new backlog items 21-26 → 27-32 to avoid collision with
  existing items 21-22

* feat: add token savings benchmark (codegraph vs raw navigation)

Adds a benchmark suite that measures how much codegraph reduces token
usage when AI agents navigate the Next.js codebase (~4k TS files).

- scripts/token-benchmark-issues.js: 5 real Next.js PRs as test cases
- scripts/token-benchmark.js: runner using Claude Agent SDK (baseline
  vs codegraph MCP), with --perf flag for build/query benchmarks
- scripts/update-token-report.js: JSON → markdown report generator
- docs/benchmarks/: methodology docs and placeholder report

Impact: 21 functions changed, 7 affected

* feat: extend benchmarks with incremental builds and expanded query coverage

benchmark.js now measures no-op rebuilds, 1-file rebuilds, and query
latency (fn-deps, fn-impact, path, roles) alongside full builds.
update-benchmark-report.js renders new Incremental Rebuilds and Query
Latency sections in BUILD-BENCHMARKS.md and adds incremental/query rows
to the README performance table. All new fields are additive for backward
compatibility.

Impact: 5 functions changed, 2 affected

* ci: include version in automated benchmark commits and PRs

Extract version from benchmark result JSON and include it in branch
names, commit messages, PR titles, and PR bodies across all 4 benchmark
jobs (build, embedding, query, incremental).

* fix: update remaining 19-tool references to 21-tool in README

* docs: remove "viral" from titan paradigm LinkedIn reference

---------

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: carlos-alm

docs/use-cases/titan-paradigm.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 
 ## The Problem
 
-In a [viral LinkedIn post](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/johannesr314_claude-vibecoding-activity-7432157088828678144-CiI_), **Johannes R.**, Senior Software Engineer at Google, described the #1 challenge of "vibe coding": keeping a fast-moving codebase from rotting.
+In a [LinkedIn post](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/johannesr314_claude-vibecoding-activity-7432157088828678144-CiI_), **Johannes R.**, Senior Software Engineer at Google, described the #1 challenge of "vibe coding": keeping a fast-moving codebase from rotting.
 
 His answer isn't a better prompt. It's a different architecture.