Two independent investigations, one runtime, complementary halves: 1. Leak (Jul 2, this machine): JsonBuf buffers returned via el_wrap_str were raw malloc, never arena-tracked — every engram_*_json call leaked its output unconditionally. Added jb_finish() arena-tracking across all ~30 return sites. Plus el_arena_push/pop per-tick bracketing support for the soul's awareness loop (the loop ran outside any request arena, so even correctly-tracked allocations were permanent — 7.5GB RSS in under a minute at 1s tick). 2. Corruption (Tim's container soak, docs findings/container-migration): stored engram node/edge fields (content, node_type, label, tier, tags, metadata, from/to ids) were arena el_strdup — freed at request end, leaving dangling pointers that read back as recycled request-buffer bytes one request later. This is the June corruption root cause and the mechanism that grew snapshot.json to 18GB of empty-type junk (21.6M nodes, 3,335 real). 39 sites switched to el_strdup_persist, plus a latent double-free fix in engram_load metadata fixup. Interaction note: fix 1's per-tick arena reclamation makes fix 2 mandatory — more aggressive arena recycling widens the use-after-free window if stored fields still live in the arena. Apply as a pair, never separately. Verified live: soul + engram rebuilt from this runtime, booted against the recovered real snapshot (3,335 nodes/40,146 edges), 5h stable at <100MB RSS, write-then-next-request field-integrity test passes (the June corruption fingerprint does not reproduce). engram/dist/engram binary updated from this build. Investigation credit: leak diagnosis this machine Jul 2-6; corruption diagnosis + persist-fix patch by Tim's instance (docs PR #4).
Engram
A local-first memory substrate for accumulating intelligence.
An engram is the physical trace of a memory in the brain — the actual encoded substrate, not an abstraction above it. That's what this is.
Why existing databases are wrong for this use case
Relational databases store rows and retrieve them by predicate. Key-value stores retrieve by exact key. Vector databases retrieve by geometric proximity. All of them share the same fundamental model: you store data in, you query it out. Storage and retrieval are separate systems.
The brain doesn't work this way.
When you remember something, you don't query your hippocampus. You activate a memory trace and the pattern propagates. Long-term potentiation — the strengthening of synaptic connections through co-activation — is simultaneously the storage mechanism and the retrieval mechanism. The structure that holds the memory is the same structure that surfaces it.
No existing database models this. Engram does.
The Spreading Activation Model
Engram retrieval works through spreading activation:
-
Seeds — you name one or more nodes you know are relevant (e.g. the current task, recent context, a concept you're reasoning about)
-
Query embedding — you provide a semantic vector representing the direction of your current thought
-
Propagation — activation flows outward from seeds through weighted edges. At each hop, strength attenuates multiplicatively:
strength = parent_strength × edge_weight × target_salience × cosine_sim(query, target) -
Pruning — paths weaker than a threshold are cut (the attention filter)
-
Return — the top-N nodes by activation strength
This is not a query. It is a pattern completion. The system surfaces what is most associatively relevant to the current context, weighted by how strongly those things have been reinforced over time.
The Four Memory Tiers
| Tier | Analogy | Contents |
|---|---|---|
Working |
Prefrontal working memory | K most recently activated nodes — hot, fast |
Episodic |
Hippocampus | Time-ordered events and experiences |
Semantic |
Neocortex | Concept graph — long-term structural knowledge |
Procedural |
Cerebellum / basal ganglia | Patterns, workflows, habits |
Nodes migrate between tiers based on salience decay and reinforcement. A frequently activated semantic node stays semantic. A rarely-touched episodic memory decays toward procedural background.
Salience — Forgetting as Adaptation
Salience is not stored permanently. It decays:
fn compute_salience(importance: f32, last_activated_ms: i64, activation_count: u64) -> f32 {
let days_since = (now_ms() - last_activated_ms) as f32 / 86_400_000.0;
importance * (1.0 / (1.0 + days_since)) * (activation_count as f32 + 1.0).ln()
}
Three signals:
- Importance (0.0–1.0): set at creation, stable
- Recency: decays toward zero as days pass without activation
- Frequency: log-compressed count of activations
Forgetting in Engram is not a bug. It is adaptive pruning. Memories that are never activated again become less likely to surface during retrieval. They are not deleted — they remain in storage — but they stop competing for attention. This is exactly how biological memory works, and why it is adaptive rather than pathological.
Quick Start
use engram_core::{EngramDb, Node, Edge, NodeType, MemoryTier, RelationType};
use std::path::Path;
// Open or create a database
let db = EngramDb::open(Path::new("/var/lib/my-agent/memory"))?;
// Create a node with a semantic embedding
let node = Node::new(
NodeType::Concept,
vec![0.9, 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.2], // embedding from your LLM
b"Spreading activation surfaces relevant memories by pattern completion".to_vec(),
MemoryTier::Semantic,
0.9, // importance
);
let id = db.put_node(node)?;
// Link it to related concepts
let related = db.put_node(Node::new(
NodeType::Concept,
vec![0.8, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.3],
b"Long-term potentiation: co-activation strengthens synaptic weight".to_vec(),
MemoryTier::Semantic,
0.85,
))?;
db.put_edge(Edge::new(id, related, RelationType::Causes, 0.9))?;
// Retrieve by spreading activation
let results = db.activate(
&[id], // seeds
&[0.85, 0.15, 0.35, 0.65, 0.75, 0.25], // query embedding
3, // max hops
10, // top-N results
)?;
for r in results {
println!(
"strength={:.4} hops={} — {}",
r.activation_strength,
r.hops,
String::from_utf8_lossy(&r.node.content)
);
}
Project Structure
engram/
crates/
engram-core/ # The memory engine — storage, graph, activation, salience
engram-ffi/ # C FFI stubs for cross-language bindings
bindings/
kotlin/ # Android / JVM binding notes
typescript/ # WASM / Node binding notes
go/ # CGo binding notes
examples/
basic.rs # Full walkthrough: insert, activate, search, decay
Public API
impl EngramDb {
fn open(path: &Path) -> EngramResult<Self>;
fn put_node(&self, node: Node) -> EngramResult<Uuid>;
fn get_node(&self, id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Option<Node>>;
fn put_edge(&self, edge: Edge) -> EngramResult<()>;
fn get_edges_from(&self, from_id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Vec<Edge>>;
fn get_edges_to(&self, to_id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Vec<Edge>>;
fn search_embedding(&self, embedding: &[f32], limit: usize) -> EngramResult<Vec<ScoredNode>>;
fn activate(&self, seeds: &[Uuid], query_embedding: &[f32], max_depth: u8, limit: usize) -> EngramResult<Vec<ActivatedNode>>;
fn traverse(&self, from: Uuid, relation: Option<RelationType>, max_depth: u8) -> EngramResult<Vec<Node>>;
fn touch(&self, id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<()>;
fn decay(&self, factor: f32) -> EngramResult<usize>;
fn node_count(&self) -> EngramResult<usize>;
fn edge_count(&self) -> EngramResult<usize>;
}
Dependencies
sled— embedded persistent B-tree (no daemon, no network, local-first)bincode— compact binary serializationuuid— stable node identityserde— derive supportthiserror/anyhow— error handling
Design Decisions
Why sled? Local-first. No daemon. Transactional. Fast enough for the node counts Engram targets (< 1M nodes). When the right HNSW index is needed, it will layer on top of sled, not replace it.
Why flat cosine scan? Correct and simple. The graph structure itself is the primary retrieval mechanism. Vector search is a secondary signal. HNSW adds complexity and a compile dependency that isn't justified until retrieval quality at scale demands it.
Why multiplicative activation? Because memory is conjunctive. A path requires all of its links to be strong to carry signal. Addition would allow many weak associations to accumulate into false relevance. Multiplication enforces that every factor matters.
Why salience decay? Because not everything that was once important remains important. Adaptive forgetting is not failure — it is the mechanism that keeps attention on what's current. A memory system that never forgets is one that can never focus.