rmc-symbol-forensics

To check all call sites for a Rust symbol before refactoring, you need a forensics report that cross-validates structural imports, consumer usage, and rust-analyzer find_references verification. This process distinguishes structural import-only presence from actual non-import references to support safe refactoring decisions.

Determining if a Rust symbol is safe to delete requires analyzing importers, consumer usage patterns, and type method fan-in across the workspace. A risk-framing verdict applies decision frames like test-only or critical-path to confirm whether downstream deletion impacts shared APIs.

Yes, rust-analyzer find_references catches macro-introduced or cfg-gated Rust symbol references that standard hypergraph indexing might miss. It verifies additional reference types during workspace-level forensics across crates to ensure accurate cross-validation of qualified items.

The best way to analyze cross-crate Rust dependency impact for a single qualified item is comparing who_imports, who_uses, and who_uses_summary outputs. This distinguishes structural import presence from non-import references and provides a Test/Other consumer breakdown for risk assessment.

Yes, you need prerequisite hypergraph building before analyzing Rust symbol usage in a workspace. This hypergraph indexing is required to coordinate who_imports, who_uses, and read_file_content context rendering for accurate downstream cross-validation.

A Rust symbol showing as imported with no direct usage indicates structural import-only presence rather than active non-import references. Comparing who_imports against who_uses_summary reveals this pattern, potentially categorizing the symbol as imported-as-bound or safe-to-delete.