cs.AIJul 23, 2026

Delivery, Not Storage: Cue-Anchored Working Memory as a Harness Property for Coding Agents

Authors: Swapnanil Saha

Organizations: Independent

Abstract

Coding agents ship with one kind of memory: documents. Instruction files, plan artifacts, and auto-written memory directories are deliberately authored and deliberately retrieved: the agent must choose to write them and choose to read them back. Human expertise runs on a second tier that never gets written down: situationally-bound operational facts (gotchas, locations, local conventions) encoded as a side effect of the work and retrieved involuntarily when the situation cues them. We argue this second tier is the load-bearing one for long-running agents and must be a harness property, not an agent choice. We contribute: (1) a two-tier design theory grounded in the cognitive literature on memory offloading, incidental encoding, and event-based prospective memory, each mapped to an architectural requirement; (2) a cue-anchored memory model where memories carry first-class trigger conditions over a composable vocabulary (path, symbol, semantic, event, temporal), evaluated deterministically by the harness, a composition no surveyed academic or shipped system provides; (3) a controlled evaluation on a real coding task showing that voluntary memory use is near zero even with a pre-seeded store (0 memory operations in 114 turns), that deterministic injection delivered in every seeded run with zero false alarms, and that 39% of intra-session re-reads re-buy content paid for before a compaction boundary; (4) a repeated-compaction decay probe: ten facts held only in conversation vanish at the first summary and stay absent from 106 of 108 compactions, and the deprived agent greps the harness's own session files to rebuild them, while the same facts injected from a harness-owned store arrive intact through all 138 compact-resumes as the final summary carries none. Delivery, not storage, is the product: the reliable memory channel for agents is the one the agent never has to think about.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 31, 2026cs.AI

Measure Before You Manage: Evaluating Agent Working Memory in Coding Agents

Agent working memory is heterogeneous. Objects such as instructions, artifacts, tool outputs, and agent-generated state play different semantic roles and exhibit different size, retention, and representation profiles. Recent work has begun to explore memory-management mechanisms that account for such heterogeneity. This work focuses on semantic heterogeneity and studies how it should shape the management and evaluation of working memory in coding agents. Across 55 archived coding-agent trajectories, we find that semantically different working-memory objects exhibit distinct retention and compression behavior. This heterogeneity motivates semantically informed memory management. We study two semantically informed strategies: an object-aware compression policy and a retrieval-based policy. Their evaluation shows that calibration gains may not transfer to held-out tasks, and that equal token budgets do not imply equal delivered context or management cost. A real-system replay further exposes serving limits that nominal budgets alone do not capture. Together, these results show why semantic structure matters for agent working memory and why evaluating memory-management strategies requires more than a nominal token budget. We organize these lessons into four levels: stored state, delivered context, management work, and task or process outcome.
Le Chen, Zishen Wan, Baixi Sun +6
Working MemoryCoding AgentsRetentionModel and Context CompressionMeasuresHeterogeneity
AskPDF
Jul 31, 2026cs.AI

Shared Organizational Memory for Enterprise Coding Agents: System Design and Deployment Snapshot

Enterprise coding agents rely on tools and retrieval, yet enterprise knowledge often remains outside public training data and formal documentation: internal DSLs, proprietary platforms, local conventions, recent fixes, and tacit workflows. Existing knowledge interfaces expose stored resources but still depend on agents recognizing and explicitly recording lessons worth reusing, disconnecting capture from the coding workflow and leaving development experience repeatedly rediscovered. We report an ongoing production deployment of a shared organizational memory system that makes capture a platform-level part of coding work: it collects task-adjacent experience with contributor approval, curates it into reusable question-answer memories, gates obvious security and privacy risks, and retrieves memories for future agents. This short paper describes the deployed lifecycle and an operational snapshot. Effects on retrieval and coding tasks remain under evaluation.
Harsh Rao Dhanyamraju, Leonidas Raghav
Coding AgentsAgent MemoryReusePrivacy Risks and Protection
AskPDF
Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

User as Code: Executable Memory for Personalized 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.
Bojie Li
Agent MemoryPersonal Artificial Intelligence AgentsUsersExplicit MemoryArtificial Intelligence Agents
AskPDF