New engineering/memory-engineering/ plugin. The repo had no skill for designing, pricing, or auditing an agent memory system: llm-wiki maintains one vault, skillopt-sleep runs a consolidation loop, agent-harness bounds a task loop. This bounds a store. Four stdlib scripts, one per lens: - memory_cost_profiler.py — construction vs query split, cost per correct answer, amortization ratio, construction co-location warning - memory_architecture_picker.py — scores the four paradigm families, disqualifies on hard constraints, names the cost the choice makes you pay, and refuses to pick when the top two tie (exit 2 + tie-breaking question) - memory_density_auditor.py — classifies records FACT/SKILL/LOG/PROSE, finds near-duplicates, flags staleness and time-relative wording, scores density; runs on a real --dir or --jsonl - forgetting_policy_linter.py — the gate. 8 checks; F1 (explicit forgetting rule) and F4 (contradictions surfaced, never auto-merged) block at exit 4 Evidence discipline: the four-lens framing is synthesized from @N01ennn's "How to be a Memory Engineer", but every quantitative claim is re-cited to the primary source, and two of the article's paraphrases are corrected in the references rather than propagated — the 47x energy figure is the spread across ten evaluated systems (not an accuracy-matched pair), and the 97% first-pass-error figure is Rakuten's named vendor testimonial (not a controlled study). Per-claim confidence levels throughout. Three classifier defects found and fixed during the build, each of which would have produced garbage on a real repo: markdown headings inside fenced code blocks were splitting records (258 phantom records -> 107 on a real directory); short fragments matched trivially at 1.00 Jaccard (41 false-positive duplicates); and signal-less prose was labeled LOG, firing LOG_HEAVY at 74% on a documentation folder — now its own PROSE class. Also ships 4 references (7 sources each), a seven-question forcing worksheet, a combined example spec consumed by all three spec-taking scripts, an F1–F8 policy template, cs-memory-engineer, /cs:memory-engineering and /cs:forgetting-audit. Verified: all 4 scripts pass --help / --sample / --output json, stdlib-only, correct exit codes on error paths; SKILL.md 6/6 PASS on the write-a-skill checklist; check_plugin_json.py --all and derive_counters.py --check both pass. Counters: skills 362->363, tools 644->648, refs 741->745, agents 102->103, commands 116->118, plugins 88->89. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jt1sqt5kQmopyfXu2Hhjnv
5.5 KiB
memory-engineering
Your agent's problem was never that it forgets. It's that it never forgets on purpose.
A storer optimizes what a system remembers. A memory engineer optimizes what it forgets. This plugin makes that shift executable: four deterministic stdlib scripts that price the write path, choose which cost to pay, audit what a store actually holds, and refuse a design with no forgetting policy.
Why this exists
Everyone building agent memory optimizes retrieval. Almost nobody engineers what it costs to build, what is worth keeping, who can delete it, and where it lands on the hardware. Stanford's systems characterization of ten memory systems found the gap concretely:
- Construction energy exceeds total query-phase energy across 300 queries — the bill is paid on the write path you never watch.
- Energy per correct answer spreads more than 47× across systems (BM25 at 4,145 J; MIRIX at ~197 kJ).
- At 1M tokens, footprint varies up to 9× — and "none of the evaluated systems prune or forget by default."
If you did not build forgetting, you do not have it.
Install
/plugin marketplace add alirezarezvani/claude-skills
/plugin install memory-engineering
Use
/cs:memory-engineering ~/.claude/memory # full four-lens pass
/cs:forgetting-audit design.json # just the blocking gate
Or run the scripts directly — each has --help, --sample, and --output json:
cd skills/memory-engineering
python scripts/memory_cost_profiler.py --sample
python scripts/memory_architecture_picker.py --sample
python scripts/memory_density_auditor.py --dir ~/.claude/memory
python scripts/forgetting_policy_linter.py --sample-failing
The four scripts
| Script | Lens | What it does | Exit codes |
|---|---|---|---|
memory_cost_profiler.py |
Stanford — what does it cost? | Splits construction vs query spend, computes cost per correct answer, flags under-amortized writes and construction co-located with live queries | 0 · 2 finding · 3 bad input |
memory_architecture_picker.py |
Stanford — which cost to pay? | Scores long-context / flat RAG / structure-augmented RAG / agentic against constraints, disqualifies on hard limits, names the cost you're choosing, refuses to pick on a tie | 0 · 2 ambiguous · 3 bad input · 4 none viable |
memory_density_auditor.py |
Microsoft — what's worth keeping? | Classifies records FACT / SKILL / LOG / PROSE, finds near-duplicates, flags stale and time-relative wording, scores knowledge density. Runs on a real directory or JSONL | 0 dense · 2 finding · 3 bad input |
forgetting_policy_linter.py |
Anthropic + the gate | 8 checks; F1 (explicit forgetting rule) and F4 (contradictions surfaced, never auto-merged) are blocking | 0 PASS · 2 CONDITIONAL · 4 FAIL |
Stdlib only. No network, no LLM calls, no dependencies.
The gate
$ python scripts/forgetting_policy_linter.py --sample-failing
VERDICT: FAIL (0/8 checks pass)
This design does not forget on purpose. F1 failed. F4 failed.
FAIL F1 explicit forgetting rule [BLOCKING]
No TTL, no capacity bound, no decay. The store only grows.
FAIL F4 contradictions surfaced, never auto-merged [BLOCKING]
Contradiction policy is 'newest_wins', which resolves conflicts silently.
F4 is blocking on purpose. Two memories that disagree may both have been true in different contexts — "deploys go through Jenkins" and "deploys go through GitHub Actions" is not a contradiction to resolve, it is a migration to record. Auto-merging destroys the only evidence the conflict existed.
Evidence discipline
The four-lens framing synthesizes "How to be a Memory Engineer, from the perspective of Stanford, Microsoft, Anthropic and Nvidia" by @N01ennn.
Every quantitative claim is cited to the primary source, not to that article, and each carries an explicit confidence level. Two of the article's paraphrases are corrected in the references:
- The 47× energy figure is the spread across ten evaluated systems, not
"two systems with identical accuracy" (
memory_cost_canon.md§2). - The 97% first-pass-error reduction is Rakuten's named, vendor-published
customer testimonial — not a controlled study or a general property of
building memory this way (
memory_control_and_governance.md§4).
Not this plugin
| You want | Use |
|---|---|
| Build and maintain one markdown knowledge vault | llm-wiki |
| A nightly self-improvement loop over transcripts | skillopt-sleep |
| Bound an agent's task loop | agent-harness |
| Price inference generally | llm-cost-optimizer |
This bounds a store, not a loop and not a vault.
Primary sources
- Omri, Y. et al. — Agent Memory: Characterization and System Implications of Stateful Long-Horizon Workloads, arXiv:2606.06448
- Microsoft Research — PlugMem: A Task-Agnostic Plugin Memory Module for LLM Agents
- Kontonis, V. et al. — MEMENTO: Teaching LLMs to Manage Their Own Context, arXiv:2604.09852
- Anthropic — Built-in memory for Claude Managed Agents
Full citation lists (7 sources each) are in
skills/memory-engineering/references/.
License
MIT.