Corpus maps claude-mem to SQLite plus Chroma vectors, lifecycle hooks, and three-layer retrieval.
Tool profile · provisional profile
claude-mem
Fuller memory infrastructure than simple rule files. The risk is treating vectors plus SQLite as architecture when curation and governance still need explicit policy.
Provisional fit
65/100
Best for: Single-user experiments that want hooks, semantic recall, and an inspectable local memory substrate.
Avoid if: you need a fully governed, citation-complete knowledge architecture without adding policy, evidence capture, and review workflow around the tool.
Caution: Infrastructure-heavy, single-user, and not naturally git-versionable. Retrieval quality and deletion semantics need evidence.
Model signature: Storage primary · single-user scope · Memory system
Layer coverage
Where this tool fits.
This is not a completed review. It is a provisional profile from public positioning plus known failure-mode mapping. Hands-on benchmarks, source snapshots, and citation-bound claims are still required before stronger conclusions.
Production
Curation
Storage
Activation
Governance
Review rule: a tool does not get credit for a layer unless it exposes inspectable behavior, not just a marketing claim.
Evidence notes
What the provisional profile has applied so far.
The latest review rubric separates storage substrate from activation policy and governance controls.
Needs tests for junk accumulation, contradiction handling, source metadata, and whether top-k recall chooses safe context.
Review packet
What a complete review must contain.
This page exposes the intended review structure. The current artifact is a profile, not a completed evidence-backed review.
Canonical source
Strengths
Single-user experiments that want hooks, semantic recall, and an inspectable local memory substrate.
Limitations
Infrastructure-heavy, single-user, and not naturally git-versionable. Retrieval quality and deletion semantics need evidence.
Dimension assessment
Scope, volatility, authority, lifecycle, resource economics, interoperability, and evidence quality must each get a rationale and citations before final scoring.
Open questions
- What can be verified from docs, code, issues, benchmarks, and changelogs?
- Where does the tool fail under stale, contradictory, private, or high-cost knowledge?
- Which claims are vendor claims versus independently observed behavior?
Benchmark critique
No benchmark number is accepted as architectural evidence unless it says which layer it tests and what it misses: lifecycle, scope boundaries, authority, context cost, and governance.
Related systems
Related tools should be connected by evidence-backed edges: competes with, integrates with, implements concept, evaluated by, or has governance gap.
Update history
Provisional profile created. Stale-review detection, source snapshots, and changelog watching are required before this becomes a durable review.