send() to a socket whose peer has closed raises SIGPIPE, whose default
disposition is terminate, and nothing in this runtime suppressed it. grep for
SIGPIPE|MSG_NOSIGNAL|SO_NOSIGPIPE|sigaction across lang/runtime/ and engram/src/
returned zero hits. So any abandoned request could kill the process, and one
did, every ten minutes, for three days.
Measured in production, not inferred:
- 254 restarts between 2026-08-13T19:37Z and 2026-08-16T18:16Z
- `launchctl list ai.neuron.engram` -> LastExitStatus = 13
(raw wait status 13 = killed by signal 13 = SIGPIPE)
- trigger: ai.neuron.engram-tick.plist, StartInterval 600 — matching the
restart cadence exactly — running `curl -s -m10 -X POST /api/tick`. When
/api/tick exceeded curl's 10s timeout the client hung up, and the eventual
response write killed the server.
- the tick log recorded an EMPTY response in 279 of 448 ticks.
- launchd KeepAlive:true restarted it each time, so the loop was invisible
except as a PID that kept changing.
Nothing was ever logged about it and nothing could have been: a signal-killed
process never reaches a line where it could write one. engram.log is 2.7 MB of
nothing but repeated "[http] listening on [::]:8742". That is the signature of
this bug, not a gap in logging.
Note what was already correct: http_send_all's `w <= 0` branch handles a dead
peer properly. It had never once executed, because the signal killed the process
before send() could return -1/EPIPE. The error handling was written and
unreachable.
The suppression is per-socket/per-call (SO_NOSIGPIPE on macOS/BSD, MSG_NOSIGNAL
on Linux) rather than a global signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN). Both fix the crash;
only this one has zero blast radius. A global handler would also change the
disposition of writes to ordinary pipes in the exec/fs paths, which this fix has
no business touching. Every HTTP response funnels through http_send_all, so one
function covers all three accept loops.
Negative control (invariant 8.6). Same data, same endpoint, same probe:
unpatched -> SERVER DIED 43.3s after the hang-up (exit 1)
patched -> survived 2 rounds, still listening, still serving (exit 0)
The probe is C, not Python, and it is worth saying why the obvious version of it
is useless: closing with SO_LINGER=0 emits RST, the server's FIRST write returns
ECONNRESET rather than raising SIGPIPE, http_send_all stops cleanly, and the test
PASSES ON THE UNPATCHED BUILD. It has to be a normal close (FIN) — first write
succeeds, peer answers RST, second write raises the signal. And liveness must be
checked ~45s later, not immediately: the kill lands when the server reaches its
write, not when the client leaves. My first probe got both wrong and reported a
false pass.
Not fixed here, and worth separate attention: /api/activate takes ~16s and
/api/tick exceeds 10s at all, and the heartbeat's -m10 is shorter than the work
it asks for.
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.