CodeNib vs Patchwork — Codebase Conventions for AI Agents

In-depth architectural comparison of the CodeNib and Patchwork — Codebase Conventions for AI Agents MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose CodeNib when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore CodeNib Details

P

Choose Patchwork — Codebase Conventions for AI Agents when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Patchwork — Codebase Conventions for AI Agents Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	CodeNib Developer Tools	P Patchwork — Codebase Conventions for AI Agents Developer Tools
Summary	Ranked codebase search and static symbol navigation for coding agents.	Scan any codebase, generate CONVENTIONS.md, expose conventions as MCP tools for AI agents.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codenib": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "codenib"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "patchwork-codebase-conventions-for-ai-agents": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "patchwork-codebase-conventions-for-ai-agents"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons