PROJECTMEM: A Local-First, Event-Sourced Memory and Judgment Layer for AI Coding Agents

A personalized AI agent needs a user memory: a persistent model of who the user is, built across many conversations and consulted on each new one. Today this memory is almost always stored as unstructured text, a knowledge graph, or a flat store of facts, and consulted by retrieval -- fetching the entries most similar to the current request. Such "bag-of-facts" memory recalls individual facts well, but because storing a fact and acting on it are separate steps, it struggles to resolve contradictions, aggregate over many records, or enforce rules. We argue that user memory should instead be executable. We introduce User as Code (UaC), a paradigm in which an agent's model of a user is a living software project: typed Python objects hold the user's state and ordinary Python functions encode the rules that govern it, so representing and reasoning about the user happen in one medium an interpreter can run. The enabling mechanism is a two-phase pipeline: an append-only log that never discards a fact, periodically checkpointed into typed code. This changes what memory can do. On standard long-term conversation benchmarks, UaC matches both a full-context upper bound and the strongest prior memory systems on recall (78.8% on LOCOMO). Its advantage emerges where representation matters most. On aggregate questions over a user's history -- "how many international trips did I take last year?" -- retrieval-based memory collapses (6-43%) while UaC stays near-perfect (99%), because the answer is a one-line computation over typed state rather than a search over text. And because its rules execute deterministically whenever the state changes, UaC can surface unsolicited, safety-critical alerts -- such as a newly prescribed drug that conflicts with an allergy recorded months earlier -- a capability query-driven memory cannot provide.

AI coding agents powered by large language models can read codebases and produce functional code, but they routinely violate team-specific product decisions that are invisible in the source code alone. We introduce a controlled benchmark measuring decision compliance, the rate at which an AI coding agent follows established product, design, and engineering decisions, across 8 realistic software engineering tasks containing 41 weighted decision points. We compare a baseline configuration (Claude Code with codebase access only) against an augmented configuration that adds Brief, a product-context retrieval system providing spec generation, mid-build consultation, and retrieval of recorded decisions, persona pain points, customer signals, and competitive intelligence. On identical prompts and the same repository, the augmented configuration achieves 95% decision compliance versus 46% for the baseline, a 49 percentage point improvement. Per-decision analysis reveals that the baseline achieves 100% compliance on decisions visible in the codebase and 0-33% on decisions requiring product context, suggesting that product-context retrieval is a key driver of the improvement. We release the benchmark repository, all 16 pull requests, and scoring harness for independent reproduction.

Large language model reasoning leaves no trace once it is done. The steps of a chain of thought disappear when the context window closes, a pruned search branch is just gone, and memory buffers cannot be diffed, merged, or audited. Code, infrastructure, and experiments are all version-controlled. Reasoning is not. GitOfThoughts stores an agent's reasoning tree as a git repository. Every scored thought becomes a commit, scores become notes, outcomes become tags, and retrieval is just git log over the agent's own history. We use this to test something simple. Does giving an agent memory from past problems actually make it more accurate? We tried five memory stores (none, a markdown file, a vector database, a graph, and git) across two benchmarks, two model sizes, and several pre-registered repeat experiments. The answer, on new problems, is no, including one promising early result that did not hold up when we repeated it. Memory only helps once the problem being solved is nearly identical to something already in memory (cosine similarity above about 0.8); below that, it does nothing. In other words, the model is finding the answer rather than learning the method. Even a model 4.5x larger still cannot pull a reusable method out of a worked example; it just gets better at spotting near-copies. The only thing that reliably helped on new problems was generating several answers and picking the most common one (self-consistency). So the case for using git as the memory store is not that it retrieves better. It is that it gives auditability, history, and the ability to merge two agents' memories, at no cost to accuracy.