How AI Coding Models Handle Context Switching and Multi-File Refactoring

As modern software systems grow increasingly modular, developers must constantly shift between disparate files, services, and logic layers. Context switching and multi-file refactoring are no longer edge cases, they are the norm in any non-trivial codebase. With the advent of AI coding models integrated into editors like VS Code, IntelliJ, and cloud-native IDEs, a crucial question emerges for engineering teams: how do AI coding models handle context switching and multi-file refactoring in practice?

This blog provides a deep dive into the technical architecture, constraints, strategies, and tradeoffs that underpin AI systems capable of understanding large-scale codebases. We explore the internal mechanisms, from prompt window optimizations and vector indexing to symbol graph reasoning and AST-informed mutation pipelines. The goal is to offer developers and technical decision-makers a clear, grounded understanding of where AI tools stand today, what they get right, and where they struggle.

‍

Why Context Switching and Multi-File Refactoring Are Non-Negotiable in Modern Development

Complex Systems Are Composed of Distributed Code Logic

Even moderately sized applications have code distributed across multiple layers. For example, a simple CRUD feature in a full-stack TypeScript application may involve:

• A React UI component
• Redux state slices
• API endpoints in an Express backend
• Validation middleware
• Type definitions in a shared types folder
• Test coverage in Cypress and Jest

Changes to any part of this system often ripple across layers. Updating the name of a field like username to userIdentifier is not a single-file task. It necessitates symbol renaming across API contracts, UI props, validation logic, type annotations, and possibly database schema files.

Refactoring Beyond the File Scope

Developers frequently need to perform actions such as:

• Renaming a function used in five different modules
• Splitting a monolithic module into separate concerns
• Updating types used across multiple services
• Rewriting business logic with parallel changes in utility libraries

AI tools that cannot handle multi-file scope changes are effectively operating under toy conditions. For production engineering workflows, file-local comprehension is inadequate.

Context Switching Is Expensive and Error-Prone

When developers manually switch contexts, they pay a cognitive cost. This involves reconstructing mental models of execution paths, recalling which files import or mutate shared state, and managing local development environments to test impacts. This cost multiplies when done frequently or without adequate tooling support. AI coding models promise to automate and compress these transitions, provided they are technically capable of inferring and operating across the relevant code boundaries.

‍

How AI Coding Models Handle Context Switching

Token Window Constraints and Intelligent Chunking

Most foundational LLMs, whether GPT-based, Claude, or open-source variants like LLaMA or Code LLaMA, operate under a fixed context window. For example:

• GPT-4-turbo: ~128k tokens
• Claude 3 Opus: ~200k tokens
• Most open-source models: 4k to 32k tokens

This imposes a hard constraint on how much of the codebase can be ingested in one shot. Tokenization overhead in source code is significant, especially in languages like TypeScript or Java with verbose type systems.

To overcome this limitation, AI tools implement multi-level chunking mechanisms. Rather than feeding an entire file or repository, these systems:

• Split code into logical segments (e.g., function bodies, class definitions)
• Prioritize nearby chunks based on recent edits or prompt relevance
• Use embeddings to compute semantic proximity and select the most contextually aligned slices

The goal is to maximize relevant context within the window, minimize token bloat from unrelated content, and maintain architectural awareness during inference.

Semantic Retrieval Using Vector Databases

To achieve a pseudo-infinite context window, many AI coding agents adopt retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). The key idea is to:

• Pre-process the codebase and encode each file, function, or symbol into a vector embedding
• Store these vectors in a high-performance vector database (e.g., Pinecone, Qdrant, Weaviate, or in-memory FAISS)
• On receiving a user query or refactor request, compute the embedding of the current context
• Retrieve the top-k most semantically relevant code chunks

This allows the model to "recall" related files, type declarations, utility functions, and API routes that are not explicitly included in the input prompt. When combined with intelligent reranking and usage frequency heuristics, this significantly improves the ability of the model to operate as if it had a much larger window.

File-Level Memory and Session Awareness

Some AI development agents extend their capabilities with long-term memory modules. This includes maintaining:

• A symbol table indexed across files and modules
• A dependency graph of imports, exports, and function call hierarchies
• User interaction history, including previously edited symbols and files

This memory can be stored persistently per session or per project. It enables the agent to maintain continuity across multiple interactions. For instance, if a developer renames a database field in one session, the model can recall this transformation and reflect it when the same field is accessed in a different file days later.

Context-Preserving Conversation Agents

Advanced tools like GoCodeo or Cursor IDE utilize agentic frameworks where models interact with the file system, language servers, or other tools to maintain stateful context. These agents:

• Store breadcrumbs of reasoning in long-term memory
• Use planner-executor architecture to decide which files to read, refactor, or write to
• Interleave LLM reasoning with compiler or static analysis feedback

This turns the AI from a stateless completion engine into a semi-autonomous assistant capable of iterative edits grounded in real project structure.

‍

How AI Coding Models Perform Multi-File Refactoring

Symbol Graph Construction and Dependency Traversal

True multi-file refactoring requires traversing symbol graphs, not just looking at adjacent lines. AI agents must resolve:

• Where is this function or class defined?
• What modules import this symbol directly or transitively?
• Are there type aliases, re-exports, or polymorphic usages that change semantics?

This typically requires parsing the codebase into ASTs, constructing a directed acyclic graph of symbol definitions and usages, and tracing paths across files. In many environments, especially TypeScript or Python, tooling must handle:

• Barrel files that re-export everything from a module
• Dynamic imports
• Conditional type resolution
• Mixed CommonJS and ESModule syntax

Only with a complete symbol graph can the agent safely propagate a change from a single origin point across the codebase.

AST-Aware Safe Mutation Engines

Rather than generating code as raw text, many AI tools now interface directly with the ASTs of a project. This allows safe, precise edits such as:

• Renaming a function without touching strings or comments
• Inserting parameters in function definitions and matching all call sites
• Extracting logic blocks into utilities while preserving scope

AST mutation guards against accidental code corruption and increases trust among developers. It also enables compatibility with formatting and linting tools, which further validate the correctness of changes.

Planning and Applying Incremental Refactors

Most reliable AI-based refactor agents adopt a multi-step workflow that closely mirrors how experienced developers operate:

1. Impact Planning: Identify all the files and symbols that will be affected
2. Suggestion Phase: Generate proposed diffs per file with explanations
3. Approval and Execution: Apply only the approved changes
4. Validation Phase: Run tests, lint checks, and type validation
5. Rollback Capability: Offer safe undo for partial or failed refactors

This structured flow reduces risk, increases auditability, and integrates well with Git-based workflows. It also allows hybrid control, where developers can accept, reject, or tweak suggestions on a file-by-file basis.

‍

Real-World Example: GoCodeo’s Context-Aware Refactoring System

GoCodeo’s AI agent is purpose-built for multi-file, full-stack applications. It integrates the following technical components to support robust refactoring:

• A real-time semantic index built using embeddings and symbolic analysis
• Deep language server integration to detect symbol definitions and usage references
• Persistent memory of recent user actions, symbol history, and file relevance
• AST-safe mutation with syntax-preserving edit trees

In practical use cases, GoCodeo has shown:

• Ability to rename a shared type across 120+ files with type-safe confidence
• Detection and automatic update of dependent test cases after business logic change
• Identification of circular imports during planned module extractions

This level of refactor intelligence significantly reduces the overhead typically involved in large-scale code evolution.

‍

Limitations and Edge Cases in Current Systems

Dynamic Code Loading and Reflection

In JavaScript, Python, and Ruby projects, dynamic behaviors like:

• require(path.join(...))
• eval or Function constructors
• Runtime reflection on class properties

Complicate static analysis. These patterns break symbol graphs, introduce ambiguity, and limit the ability of AI agents to reason safely across files.

Partial Knowledge in Large Monorepos

In large monorepos with hundreds of packages, agents often operate in isolated scopes due to performance constraints. This fragmentation can result in:

• Incomplete context when making cross-package changes
• Failure to update all transitive dependencies
• Blind spots in symbol resolution

Improving distributed reasoning across segmented knowledge graphs is an open challenge.

Non-Code Artifacts and Coupled Domains

Refactors that touch schema files, deployment configs, test snapshots, and environment variables require the AI agent to understand heterogeneous file formats. YAML, JSON, SQL, and even Markdown need to be parsed and reasoned about. Multi-file refactoring in such contexts remains nascent.

‍

The Future of AI-Assisted Context Management and Refactoring

Multi-Agent Orchestration

Soon, we will see agent systems with dedicated roles:

• One agent for planning file impacts
• Another for code transformation
• One for verification using compiler and tests

This separation of concerns will improve reliability and scalability.

Persistent Project-Level Memory

Long-term project memory stored as structured knowledge graphs will allow agents to:

• Understand architectural decisions
• Detect refactor patterns and anti-patterns
• Learn from historical PRs and commits

Proactive Refactoring Suggestions

Instead of reacting to user instructions, AI tools will proactively suggest safe and useful refactors. For example:

• Identifying dead code or duplicate logic
• Offering class extractions when cyclomatic complexity grows
• Suggesting prop drilling replacements with context APIs or state managers

‍

Conclusion

AI coding models are no longer limited to local completions or trivial suggestions. With the right architecture, they can handle sophisticated, cross-file refactors and provide continuity across complex development workflows. Through retrieval mechanisms, memory augmentation, AST parsing, and symbolic graph construction, these tools are evolving into robust assistants capable of understanding the software stack at scale.

However, developers must be aware of their current limitations, especially in dynamically typed or reflective languages. As these systems continue to mature, engineering teams that leverage them intelligently will be positioned to write, refactor, and maintain software faster, safer, and with greater confidence.