I've been building persistent memory for Claude Code too, narrower focus though: the AI's model of the user specifically. Different goal but I kept hitting what I think is a universal problem with long-lived memory. Not all stored information is equally reliable and nothing degrades gracefully.
An observation from 30 sessions ago and a guess from one offhand remark just sit at the same level. So I started tagging beliefs with confidence scores and timestamps, and decaying ones that haven't been reinforced. The most useful piece ended up being a contradictions log where conflicting observations both stay on the record. Default status: unresolved.
Tiered loading is smart for retrival. Curious if you've thought about the confidence problem on top of it, like when something in warm memory goes stale or conflicts with something newer.
This is a really good observation and honestly one of the hardest problems I've hit too.
Cog doesn't use confidence scores (yet — you're making me think about it), but the nightly pipeline is basically a proxy for the same thing. The /reflect pass runs twice a day and does consistency sweeps — it reads canonical files and checks that every referencing file still agrees. When facts drift (and they do, constantly), it catches and fixes them. The reinforcement signal is implicit: things that keep coming up in conversations get promoted to hot memory, things that go quiet eventually get archived to "glacier" (cold storage, still retrievable but not loaded by default).
The closest thing to your contradictions log is probably the observations layer — raw timestamped events that never get edited or deleted. Threads (synthesis files) get rewritten freely, but the observations underneath are append-only. So when the AI's understanding changes, the old observations are still there as a paper trail.
Where I think you're ahead is making confidence explicit. My system handles staleness through freshness (timestamps, "as of" dates on entities, pipeline frequency) but doesn't distinguish between "I'm very sure about this" and "I inferred this once." That's a real gap. Would love to see what you're building — is it public?
This is really interesting. At this point you seem to be modelling real human memory
In my opinion, this should happen inside the LLM dorectly. Trying to scaffold it on top of the next token predictor isnt going to be fruitful enough. It wont get us the robot butlers we need.
But obviously thays really hard. That needs proper ML research, not primpt engineering
You're probably right long term. If LLMs eventually handle memory natively with confidence and decay built in, scaffolding like this becomes unnecessary. But right now they don't, and the gap between "stores everything flat" and "models you with any epistemological rigor" is pretty wide. This is a patch for the meantime.
The other thing is that even if the model handles memory internally, you probably still want the beliefs to be inspectable and editable by the user. A hidden internal model of who you are is exactly the problem I was trying to solve. Transparency might need to stay in the scaffold layer regardless.
I like the idea of various extensions of LLM context using transparent plaintext, automatic consolidation and summarization... but I just can't read this LLM-generated text documenting it. The style is so painful. If someone ends up finding this tooling useful I hope they write it up and I hear about it again!
An observation from 30 sessions ago and a guess from one offhand remark just sit at the same level. So I started tagging beliefs with confidence scores and timestamps, and decaying ones that haven't been reinforced. The most useful piece ended up being a contradictions log where conflicting observations both stay on the record. Default status: unresolved.
Tiered loading is smart for retrival. Curious if you've thought about the confidence problem on top of it, like when something in warm memory goes stale or conflicts with something newer.
Cog doesn't use confidence scores (yet — you're making me think about it), but the nightly pipeline is basically a proxy for the same thing. The /reflect pass runs twice a day and does consistency sweeps — it reads canonical files and checks that every referencing file still agrees. When facts drift (and they do, constantly), it catches and fixes them. The reinforcement signal is implicit: things that keep coming up in conversations get promoted to hot memory, things that go quiet eventually get archived to "glacier" (cold storage, still retrievable but not loaded by default).
The closest thing to your contradictions log is probably the observations layer — raw timestamped events that never get edited or deleted. Threads (synthesis files) get rewritten freely, but the observations underneath are append-only. So when the AI's understanding changes, the old observations are still there as a paper trail.
Where I think you're ahead is making confidence explicit. My system handles staleness through freshness (timestamps, "as of" dates on entities, pipeline frequency) but doesn't distinguish between "I'm very sure about this" and "I inferred this once." That's a real gap. Would love to see what you're building — is it public?
In my opinion, this should happen inside the LLM dorectly. Trying to scaffold it on top of the next token predictor isnt going to be fruitful enough. It wont get us the robot butlers we need.
But obviously thays really hard. That needs proper ML research, not primpt engineering
The other thing is that even if the model handles memory internally, you probably still want the beliefs to be inspectable and editable by the user. A hidden internal model of who you are is exactly the problem I was trying to solve. Transparency might need to stay in the scaffold layer regardless.
¹ https://github.com/obra/episodic-memory ² https://claudefa.st/blog/guide/mechanics/auto-dream