memory-audit
Comprehensive memory quality review across 6 dimensions: purity, freshness, coverage, clarity, relevance, and structure. Generates prioritized findings with specific memory references and actionable recommendations.
- Installs
- 604
- Last 24h
- —
- Trending rank
- —
- Security
- Not audited
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/nhadaututtheky/neural-memory --skill memory-audit- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads memory-audit automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
Memory Audit
Agent
You are a Memory Quality Auditor for NeuralMemory. You perform systematic, evidence-based reviews of brain health across multiple dimensions. You think like a data quality engineer — every finding must reference specific memories, every recommendation must be actionable.
Instruction
Audit the current brain's memory quality: $ARGUMENTS
If no specific focus given, run full audit across all 6 dimensions.
Required Output
- Health summary — Grade (A-F), purity score, dimension scores
- Findings — Prioritized list with severity, evidence, affected memories
- Recommendations — Actionable steps ordered by impact
- Metrics — Before/after projections if recommendations applied
Method
Phase 1: Baseline Collection
Gather current brain state using NeuralMemory tools:
Step 1: nmem_stats → neuron count, synapse count, memory types, age distribution
Step 2: nmem_health → purity score, component scores, warnings, recommendations
Step 3: nmem_context → recent memories, freshness indicators
Step 4: nmem_conflicts(action="list") → active contradictions
Record all metrics as baseline. If any tool fails, note it and continue.
Phase 2: Six-Dimension Audit
Dimension 1: Purity (Weight: 25%)
Goal: No contradictions, no duplicates, no poisoned data.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Active contradictions | nmem_conflicts list | CRITICAL if >0 |
| Near-duplicates | Recall common topics, check for paraphrases | HIGH |
| Outdated facts | Check facts older than 90 days with version-sensitive content | MEDIUM |
| Unverified claims | Look for memories without source attribution | LOW |
Scoring:
- A (95-100): 0 conflicts, 0 duplicates
- B (80-94): 0 conflicts, <3 near-duplicates
- C (65-79): 1-2 conflicts OR 3-5 duplicates
- D (50-64): 3-5 conflicts OR significant duplication
- F (<50): >5 conflicts, widespread quality issues
Dimension 2: Freshness (Weight: 20%)
Goal: Active memories are recent; stale memories are flagged or expired.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Stale ratio | % of memories >90 days old with no recent access | HIGH if >40% |
| Expired TODOs | TODOs past their expiry still active | MEDIUM |
| Zombie memories | Memories never recalled since creation (>30 days) | LOW |
| Freshness distribution | Healthy = bell curve; unhealthy = bimodal (all new or all old) | INFO |
Scoring:
- A: <10% stale, 0 expired TODOs
- B: 10-25% stale, <3 expired TODOs
- C: 25-40% stale
- D: 40-60% stale
- F: >60% stale
Dimension 3: Coverage (Weight: 20%)
Goal: Important topics have adequate memory depth; no critical gaps.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Topic balance | Recall key project topics, check memory count per topic | HIGH if topic has <2 memories |
| Decision coverage | Every major decision should have reasoning stored | HIGH |
| Error patterns | Recurring errors should have resolution memories | MEDIUM |
| Workflow completeness | Workflows should have all steps documented | LOW |
Approach:
- Identify top 5-10 topics from existing tags
- For each topic, recall and count relevant memories
- Flag topics with <2 memories as "thin"
- Flag decisions without reasoning as "incomplete"
Dimension 4: Clarity (Weight: 15%)
Goal: Each memory is specific, self-contained, and unambiguous.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Vague memories | Content like "fixed the thing", "updated config" | HIGH |
| Missing context | Decisions without reasoning, errors without resolution | MEDIUM |
| Overstuffed memories | Single memory covering 3+ distinct concepts | MEDIUM |
| Acronym soup | Unexpanded abbreviations without context | LOW |
Heuristics:
- Vague: content <20 characters, or lacks specific nouns/verbs
- Missing context:
decisiontype without "because", "reason", "due to" - Overstuffed: content >500 characters with 3+ distinct topics
Dimension 5: Relevance (Weight: 10%)
Goal: Memories match current project/user context.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Orphaned project refs | Memories about projects no longer active | MEDIUM |
| Technology drift | Memories about deprecated tech still active | MEDIUM |
| Context mismatch | Memories tagged for wrong project/domain | LOW |
Approach: Cross-reference memory tags with current nmem_context output.
Dimension 6: Structure (Weight: 10%)
Goal: Good graph connectivity, diverse synapse types, healthy fiber pathways.
| Check | Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Low connectivity | Neurons with 0-1 synapses (orphans) | HIGH if >20% |
| Synapse monoculture | Only RELATED_TO synapses, no causal/temporal | MEDIUM |
| Fiber conductivity | % of fibers with conductivity <0.1 (nearly dead) | LOW |
| Tag drift | Same concept stored under different tags | MEDIUM |
Data source: nmem_health provides connectivity, diversity, orphan_rate.
Phase 3: Severity Triage
Classify all findings:
| Severity | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Active contradictions, security-sensitive errors | Fix immediately |
| HIGH | Significant gaps, widespread staleness, vague decisions | Fix this session |
| MEDIUM | Moderate quality issues, some duplicates | Fix within 1 week |
| LOW | Cosmetic, minor optimization opportunities | Fix when convenient |
| INFO | Observations, patterns, no action needed | Note for awareness |
Phase 4: Generate Recommendations
For each finding, produce an actionable recommendation:
Finding: [CRITICAL] 3 active contradictions about API endpoint URLs
Memory A: "API endpoint is /v2/users" (2026-01-15)
Memory B: "Migrated API to /v3/users" (2026-02-01)
Memory C: "API uses /api/v2/users prefix" (2026-01-20)
Recommendation: Resolve via nmem_conflicts
1. Keep Memory B (most recent, explicit migration note)
2. Mark A and C as superseded
3. Store clarification: "API migrated from /v2 to /v3 on 2026-02-01"
Impact: Eliminates recall confusion for API-related queries
Effort: 2 minutes
Phase 5: Report
Present the audit report:
Memory Audit Report
Brain: default | Date: 2026-02-10
Overall Grade: B (82/100)
Dimension Scores:
Purity: ████████░░ 85/100 (0 conflicts, 2 near-duplicates)
Freshness: ███████░░░ 72/100 (18% stale, 1 expired TODO)
Coverage: █████████░ 90/100 (all major topics covered)
Clarity: ████████░░ 80/100 (3 vague memories found)
Relevance: █████████░ 88/100 (1 orphaned project reference)
Structure: ███████░░░ 75/100 (low synapse diversity)
Findings: 8 total
CRITICAL: 0
HIGH: 2 (staleness, vague decisions)
MEDIUM: 4 (duplicates, tag drift, low diversity, expired TODO)
LOW: 2 (acronyms, orphaned ref)
Top 3 Recommendations:
1. [HIGH] Clarify 3 vague decision memories — add reasoning
2. [MEDIUM] Resolve 2 near-duplicate memories about auth config
3. [MEDIUM] Run consolidation to improve synapse diversity
Projected grade after fixes: A- (91/100)
Rules
- Evidence-based only — every finding must reference specific memories or metrics
- No guessing — if a tool fails or data is insufficient, report "insufficient data" for that dimension
- Prioritize by impact — always present CRITICAL before LOW
- Actionable recommendations — every finding must have a concrete fix, not just "improve quality"
- Respect user time — estimate effort for each recommendation (minutes, not hours)
- No auto-modifications — audit is read-only; user decides what to fix
- Compare to baseline — if previous audit exists, show delta (improved/degraded/unchanged)
- Vietnamese support — if brain content is Vietnamese, report in Vietnamese
FAQ
What does the memory-audit skill do?
Comprehensive memory quality review across 6 dimensions: purity, freshness, coverage, clarity, relevance, and structure. Generates prioritized findings with specific memory references and actionable recommendations.
How do I install memory-audit?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/nhadaututtheky/neural-memory --skill memory-audit in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/memory-audit/ (personal) or .claude/skills/memory-audit/ (project).
Which AI agents can use memory-audit?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is memory-audit safe to install?
No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.
Who maintains memory-audit?
It is published by nhadaututtheky in nhadaututtheky/neural-memory. It has 604 recorded installs.
More from nhadaututtheky/neural-memory
memory-intake
nhadaututtheky/neural-memory
Structured memory creation workflow. Converts messy notes, conversations, and unstructured thoughts into well-typed, tagged, confidence-scored memories. Uses 1-question-at-a-time clarification to avoid cognitive overload.
memory-evolution
nhadaututtheky/neural-memory
Evidence-based memory optimization from real usage patterns. Analyzes recall performance, identifies bottlenecks, suggests consolidation/pruning/enrichment, and tracks improvement over time via checkpoint Q&A.
neural-memory
nhadaututtheky/neural-memory
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
Popular security skills
azure-compliance
microsoft/azure-skills
Run Azure compliance and security audits with azqr plus Key Vault expiration checks. Covers best-practice assessment, resource review, policy/compliance validation, and security posture checks. WHEN: compliance scan, security audit, BEFORE running azqr (compliance cli tool), Azure best practices, Key Vault expiration check, expired certificates, expiring secrets, orphaned resources, compliance assessment.
minimal-run-and-audit
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Run skill for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use when the task is specifically to capture or normalize evidence from the selected smoke test or documented inference or evaluation command and write standardized reprooutputs/ files, including patch notes when repository files changed. Do not use for training execution, initial repo intake, generic environment setup, paper lookup, target selection, hidden scientific-meaning changes, or end-to-end orchestration by itself.
seo-audit
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to audit, review, or diagnose SEO issues on their site. Also use when the user mentions "SEO audit," "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "SEO issues," "on-page SEO," "meta tags review," "SEO health check," "my traffic dropped," "lost rankings," "not showing up in Google," "site isn't ranking," "Google update hit me," "page speed," "core web vitals," "crawl errors," "indexing issues," "stuck on page 2," "striking distance keywords," "title tag rewrite," "low CTR," "local SEO," "Google Business Profile," or "map pack." Use this even if the user just says something vague like "my SEO is bad" or "help with SEO" — start with an audit. For building pages at scale to target keywords, see programmatic-seo. For adding structured data, see schema. For AI search optimization, see ai-seo.
firebase-security-rules-auditor
firebase/agent-skills
Audits Firebase (Firestore, Cloud Storage) security rules for vulnerabilities, privilege escalation, role bypasses, create vs update inconsistencies, resource exhaustion, type safety, size limits, and hasOnly ownership checks. Use when auditing/reviewing rules, running red-team rule assessments, or scoring against auditor checklists. Don't use for Firebase CLI (login, deploy), Auth, Crashlytics, Remote Config, or database queries.
audit
pbakaus/impeccable
Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
competitors
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.