memory-research — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited memory-research (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Research an external subject, synthesize what you find, and create a structured Basic Memory entity — with the user's approval.
Basic Memory does not include a web search tool. If this host already has one, use it. If it does not, the user can add any web search tool or MCP server, for example Parallel Search MCP. Search queries go to that provider, so keep private note content out of them. Still ask before saving a note.
Search for current information across multiple sources. Aim for 3-5 searches to build a well-rounded picture:
[subject name] site
[subject name] overview
[subject name] news [current year]
[subject name] [relevant domain keywords]What to gather by entity type:
| Entity Type | Key Information |
|---|---|
| Organization | What they do, products/services, stage (startup/growth/public), funding, leadership, headquarters, employee count, notable partnerships or contracts |
| Person | Current role, organization, background, expertise, notable work, public presence |
| Technology | What it does, who maintains it, maturity, ecosystem, alternatives, adoption |
| Topic/Domain | Definition, current state, key players, trends, relevance to user's context |
Before proposing a new entity, search Basic Memory:
bm_search(query="Acme Corp")
bm_search(query="acme")Try name variations — full name, abbreviation, acronym, domain name.
If the entity already exists:
bm_edit to append new observations or update outdated onesIf the entity doesn't exist, proceed to evaluation.
Present your findings in a structured summary. Include all relevant information organized by section:
## [Subject Name]
**Type:** [Organization / Person / Technology / Topic]
**Summary:** [2-4 sentences: what this is, why it matters, key distinguishing facts]
**Key Details:**
- [Organized by what's relevant for the entity type]
- [Stage, funding, leadership for orgs]
- [Role, expertise, affiliations for people]
- [Maturity, ecosystem, alternatives for tech]
**Relevance:** [Why this matters to the user — connection to their work, domain, or interests.
If no obvious connection: "No specific connection identified."]
**Sources:**
- [URLs of key sources consulted]Use hedging language. Web research is a snapshot, not ground truth:
(see memory-notes): - [stage] @valid:2026-10 Series B, about 200 employees (public information)
Don't fabricate. If information isn't available, say so:
Let the user define relevance. Don't impose a fixed evaluation framework. Instead, highlight facts and let the user draw conclusions. If the user has a specific evaluation rubric (strategic fit, buy/partner/compete, etc.), they'll tell you — apply it when asked.
After presenting the summary, ask for approval:
Create Basic Memory entity for [Subject]?
Location: [suggested-folder]/[entity-name].md
Type: [entity type]
[yes / no / modify]If the user provided context with their request ("saw them at the conference"), include that context in the proposed entity.
After approval, create a structured note. Adapt the template to the entity type:
#### Organization
bm_write(
title="Acme Corp",
directory="organizations",
note_type="organization",
tags=["organization", "relevant-tags"],
content="""# Acme Corp
## Overview
[2-3 sentence description from research]
## Products & Services
- [Key offerings discovered in research]
## Background
**Stage:** [Startup / Growth / Public]
**Headquarters:** [Location]
**Employees:** [Estimate, hedged]
**Leadership:** [Key people if found]
**Founded:** [Year if found]
## Observations
- [relevance] Why this entity matters in user's context
- [source] Researched on YYYY-MM-DD
- [additional observations from research findings]
## Relations
- [Link to related entities already in the knowledge graph]"""
)#### Person
bm_write(
title="Jane Smith",
directory="people",
note_type="person",
tags=["person", "relevant-tags"],
content="""# Jane Smith
## Overview
[Current role and affiliation. Brief background.]
## Background
**Role:** [Title at Organization]
**Expertise:** [Key domains]
**Notable:** [Publications, talks, projects if found]
## Observations
- [role] Title at Organization
- [expertise] Key technical or domain expertise
- [source] Researched on YYYY-MM-DD
## Relations
- works_at [[Organization]]"""
)#### Technology
bm_write(
title="Technology Name",
directory="concepts",
note_type="concept",
tags=["concept", "technology", "relevant-tags"],
content="""# Technology Name
## Overview
[What it is and what problem it solves]
## Key Details
**Maintained by:** [Organization or community]
**Maturity:** [Experimental / Stable / Mature]
**License:** [If applicable]
**Alternatives:** [Comparable tools or approaches]
## Observations
- [definition] What this technology does in one sentence
- [maturity] Current state and adoption level
- [source] Researched on YYYY-MM-DD
## Relations
- [Link to related concepts, tools, or projects in the knowledge graph]"""
)Adapt these templates freely. The key elements are: note_type/tags parameters, an overview, structured details, observations with categories, and relations.
If bm_write reports similar existing notes, check whether one of them is this entity before keeping the new note; merge or link instead of duplicating.
If the user provided context with their request, capture it in the entity:
# User said: "Acme Corp — saw their demo at the conference last week"
bm_edit(
identifier="Acme Corp",
command="insert_after_section",
section="Observations",
content="- [context] Saw their demo at conference, week of 2026-02-17"
)This context is often the most valuable part — it's the user's relationship to the entity, which web research can't provide.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.