aft_callgraph never resolves cross-file Python call edges; callers under-report and disclosure only covers zero-caller answers #1130

What happened?

aft_callgraph callers finds no cross-file call sites in Python code. A function called from another file through an ordinary static import — top-level from mod import func or a function-local from mod import func inside a function body — is reported as having 0 callers, and call_tree marks the call resolved: false. The same edge resolves normally in TypeScript.

Reproduction (files placed directly in a fresh project directory, engine configured on it):

mod.py:

def toplevel_target():
    return 1


def local_target():
    return 2


def test_target():
    return 3


def same_file_caller():
    return toplevel_target()

caller_toplevel.py:

from mod import toplevel_target


def run_toplevel():
    return toplevel_target()

caller_local.py:

def run_local():
    from mod import local_target
    return local_target()

ts_mod.ts:

export function tsTarget(): number {
  return 7;
}

ts_caller.ts:

import { tsTarget } from "./ts_mod";

export function runTsCaller(): number {
  return tsTarget();
}

Requests and observed results on a binary built from main at a5b9b8a2f (includes #1015), isolated storage, after the call-graph build finished:

• {"command":"callers","file":"<root>/mod.py","symbol":"toplevel_target"} — returns only the same-file caller (same_file_caller:17); the cross-file caller in caller_toplevel.py is missing. The response carries no incompleteness marker.
• {"command":"callers","file":"<root>/mod.py","symbol":"local_target"} — 0 callers, complete: false, unresolved_call_sites: 36, incomplete_reason: "Incomplete: 36 call sites in the analyzed Python code could not be resolved, so a dynamic or indirect call may still reach local_target."
• {"command":"callers","file":"<root>/mod.py","symbol":"test_target","includeTests":true} — 0 callers with the same disclosure (37 unresolved sites).
• {"command":"callers","file":"<root>/ts_mod.ts","symbol":"tsTarget"} — resolves the cross-file edge (runTsCaller:4).
• {"command":"call_tree","file":"<root>/caller_toplevel.py","symbol":"run_toplevel","depth":1} — child toplevel_target with resolved: false.
• {"command":"call_tree","file":"<root>/caller_local.py","symbol":"run_local","depth":1} — child local_target with resolved: false.

After adding the same-file caller to mod.py, callers toplevel_target returned exactly that one same-file caller, so same-file Python edges resolve while cross-file Python edges do not. The import forms involved are plain static from imports (no importlib, no exec, no dynamic module names).

Two observations on the current state:

1. Cross-file Python call edges are never resolved, so callers/impact under-report for Python. With an unresolved call site demonstrably present, the answer for a symbol that also has a same-file caller carries no incompleteness marker at all (first request above), and zero-caller answers disclose only a generic count of unresolved call sites rather than pointing at cross-file imports.
2. On the shipped 0.62.0 release the same probe returns a bare 0 callers with no disclosure.

Expected: callers finds the cross-file call sites ("Find all call sites of a symbol"), or at minimum discloses the gap whenever unresolved call sites to the queried symbol exist in the analyzed code — not only on zero-caller answers.

Diagnostics

npx @cortexkit/aft@latest doctor --issue was run in a non-interactive terminal and declined to collect a report ("Non-interactive terminal — not collecting or filing automatically"). Filled in manually below.

Plugin version

0.63.0 (packages/opencode-plugin at the checked-out main)

AFT binary version

Reproduced on both: 0.62.0 (shipped release, daemon binary ~/.cache/aft/bin/v0.62.0/aft) and a release build of main at a5b9b8a2f (includes #1015). Same results apart from the zero-caller disclosure, which only the main build emits.

Platform

linux x64