jp_parse_string_raw handled \uXXXX by skipping the four hex digits and emitting a literal '?'. JSON writers escape non-ASCII by default (Python's json.dumps ships ensure_ascii=True; MCP clients do the same), so every em dash, curly quote, accented letter and emoji arriving over MCP or HTTP was silently replaced by one question mark on the way in. Measured on the live store: 3,119 of 4,081 non-telemetry nodes carried the damage, including the self traversal root and all 13 values nodes. Contents split cleanly into fully-clean or fully-mangled with zero overlap, which is the tell that it was one write path rather than gradual rot. No snapshot on disk predates it, and 3 bytes collapsing to 1 is not invertible, so the existing damage is permanent; only the forward path could be fixed. Decode properly instead: 4 hex digits, surrogate-pair reassembly for astral codepoints, U+FFFD for lone surrogates, UTF-8 encode. Malformed escapes keep the old '?' so a truncated body still parses. The deeper failure was that nothing measured this for two months. Every gauge in the system reports whether the machinery is running; none reported whether the text it carries is intact. Adds both halves: engram_text_health_json() / GET /api/text-health for the daily census, and a txt_damaged counter on the heartbeat for live regression. Verified in both directions - clean UTF-8 does not trip it, a deliberately damaged node does.
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.