Graft vs planning-with-files
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
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 for AI coding agents and long-running tasks. Crash-proof markdown plans, session recovery after /clear and compaction, per-turn r
Metrics
| Graft | planning-with-files | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 9.4k | 27.2k |
| Star velocity /mo | 786.0833333333334 | 2.3k |
| Commits (90d) | 512 | 237 |
| Releases (6m) | 0 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.6442866086474068 | 0.8039568963116691 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Graft or planning-with-files?
- planning-with-files has more GitHub stars (27,205 vs 9,433).
- Which is more actively developed, Graft or planning-with-files?
- Graft had more commits in the last 90 days (512 vs 237).
- 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.