The durable context layer for Cursor and every agent.
repowise is not an editor, and it does not replace Cursor. It is the structured, cross-agent context layer that Cursor's built-in index is not: an architecture-aware wiki, dependency graph, decisions, git intelligence, and defect-validated code health, served to any MCP agent.
Cursor's index is great at one job: feeding the model a few relevant chunks inside the editor. But it is embeddings-only, single-repo, ephemeral, and locked to Cursor, so the context dies at the editor boundary.
repowise builds a durable, structured model of your codebase once, then serves it to every agent. The same architecture-aware wiki, dependency graph, decisions, git intelligence, and defect-validated health score feed Cursor, Claude Code, Cline, and Codex alike, through nine task-shaped MCP tools rather than raw nearest-neighbor retrieval.
Which one is right for you?
Choose repowise if
- You want a durable, structured context layer, not an ephemeral embeddings-only index
- You want the same context across every agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Codex), not locked to one editor
- You want curated answers (get_answer, get_context) instead of raw nearest-neighbor chunks
- You want an architecture wiki, dependency graph, decisions, git intelligence, and defect-validated code health, not just retrieval
- You want to self-host so code never leaves your infrastructure
Choose Cursor's index if
- You want a full AI IDE with inline editing, autocomplete, and agents in one place
- You want zero-setup in-editor retrieval that just works the moment you open a repo
- You only need ephemeral context inside a single repo, inside Cursor
- You want everything to live in one tool with no extra MCP server to register
repowise vs Cursor's index
| Capability | repowise | Cursor's index |
|---|---|---|
| In-editor codebase retrieval (RAG over chunks) | ||
| Full AI IDE: inline editing, autocomplete, agentsrepowise is a context layer, not an editor | ||
| Zero-setup in-editor retrievalCursor's index just works; repowise needs an index + MCP registration | ||
| Works offline in-editorrepowise can run fully offline via Ollama; Cursor embeds on its servers | ||
| Durable, structured index (not ephemeral) | ||
| Cross-agent via MCP (Claude Code, Cline, Codex, more)Cursor's index is Cursor-only | ||
| Curated answers (get_answer / get_context), not just chunks | ||
| Architecture-aware wiki and documentation | ||
| Tree-sitter dependency graph | ||
| Defect-validated code-health score | ||
| Git intelligence (hotspots, ownership, coupling) | ||
| Architectural decision records | ||
| Multi-repo workspace context | ||
| Open source and self-hostable |
Self-assessed against publicly documented features as of June 2026. A dash means partial or limited support. Vendor capabilities change, so please verify against Cursor's index's current docs before deciding.
Cursor's index ends at the editor. repowise does not.
Keep Cursor. Add a durable, structured context layer that every one of your agents can call, with the architecture, history, and health signals an embeddings-only index was never built to hold.
A structured model of your code, not a bag of vectors
Cursor's index stores chunks, line ranges, and file paths so the model can retrieve nearest neighbors. repowise builds five durable intelligence layers and serves curated, task-shaped answers, so an agent gets a real model of your code instead of a handful of similar snippets.
- Architecture-aware wiki, rebuilt incrementally on every commit
- Tree-sitter dependency graph across 15 languages, two-tier file and symbol nodes
- Architectural decisions mined from eight sources, with lineage and staleness
- Defect-validated code health: 25 deterministic biomarkers, cross-project ROC AUC 0.74
Build context once, use it in every tool
Cursor's index only works inside Cursor. repowise is exposed over MCP, so the same context serves Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Codex, and Windsurf. Switch editors and you keep your context instead of re-indexing and re-paying for it per tool.
- Nine MCP tools: get_overview, get_answer, get_context, get_risk, get_why, and more
- Register once in any MCP client, including Cursor itself
- Multi-repo workspaces: cross-repo co-changes and API contracts in one query
- Curated answers with cited sources and calibrated retrieval quality
96% fewer context tokens, self-hostable, no telemetry
Every MCP call replaces a read-and-re-read loop with a curated answer, and the savings are measured in paired benchmarks. The core is open source under AGPL-3.0, so you can self-host the whole thing and your code never leaves your infrastructure.
- 96% fewer tokens to load context, 89% fewer file reads, 70% fewer tool calls
- Answer quality on par with the baseline in paired SWE-QA runs
- Self-host under AGPL-3.0, bring your own LLM key or run fully offline via Ollama
- Zero telemetry; raw source is processed transiently, never persisted
The honest version
Cursor is a genuinely great AI IDE, and there are things it does that repowise simply does not. Cursor is a full editor with inline editing, autocomplete, and agents in one place, while repowise is a context layer and not an editor at all, so you keep using your editor alongside it. Cursor's codebase index requires zero setup: it just works the moment you open a repo, with no index to build and no MCP server to register. And because retrieval runs inside the editor, it stays out of your way during ordinary in-editor work in a single repo. If ephemeral, in-editor retrieval is all you need, Cursor's built-in index is enough. repowise wins when you want context that is durable, structured, portable across every agent, and self-hostable, the layer an embeddings-only index was never meant to be.
Questions, answered
Does repowise replace Cursor?
No. repowise is not an AI editor and it does not replace Cursor. Cursor is an excellent IDE, and you keep using it. repowise is a context layer that sits underneath your agents: it builds a durable, structured model of your codebase and serves it to Cursor and every other MCP agent. Think of it as an upgrade to the context your editor already uses, not a competitor to the editor itself.
How is repowise different from Cursor's codebase index?
As of June 2026, Cursor's codebase index chunks your files, embeds them on Cursor's servers, stores the embeddings with line ranges and file paths in a remote vector database, and keeps them in sync with a Merkle tree of file hashes. When you use @Codebase or Cmd-Enter, it does nearest-neighbor retrieval to feed the model. That index is embeddings-only, effectively single-repo, ephemeral, and locked to the Cursor editor. repowise builds five durable intelligence layers instead: an architecture-aware wiki, a tree-sitter dependency graph, mined architectural decisions, git intelligence, and a defect-validated code-health score, then serves curated answers through nine MCP tools rather than raw nearest-neighbor chunks.
Can I use repowise with Cursor?
Yes, and that is the point. repowise exposes its index through the Model Context Protocol, so you register it in Cursor like any MCP server and your Cursor agent can call get_overview, get_answer, get_context, get_risk, and get_why. The same server also works with Claude Code, Cline, Codex, and Windsurf, so the context you build once is available in whichever tool you happen to be using.
Is repowise locked to one editor?
No. Cursor's built-in index only works inside Cursor. repowise is exposed over MCP, so the same structured context is available to Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Codex, Windsurf, and any MCP-compatible client. You are not re-indexing per editor or re-buying context when you switch tools.
Is repowise self-hostable?
Yes. The repowise core is open source under AGPL-3.0, so you can run the whole platform yourself. You bring your own LLM key or run fully offline with Ollama, code never leaves your infrastructure, and there is zero telemetry. Cursor's index is a hosted service: chunks are embedded on Cursor's servers and the embeddings live in their vector database.
Does repowise cut token usage?
Yes, and it is measured. In paired SWE-QA runs on real repositories with the same model and harness, repowise cut the tokens needed to load context by 96% (2,391 versus 64,039 tokens through get_context, about 27 times fewer), reduced file reads by 89%, and cut tool calls by 70%, all at answer quality on par with the baseline. Curated, task-shaped answers replace the read-and-re-read loop that raw retrieval leaves agents in.
Why not just rely on the editor's built-in index?
If all you need is ephemeral in-editor retrieval inside a single repo, Cursor's built-in index is genuinely enough and requires zero setup. repowise earns its place when you want context that is durable, structured, and portable: architecture-aware documentation, a real dependency graph, architectural decisions, git intelligence, and a defect-validated health score, reusable across every agent and self-hostable. The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.