Skip to main content
Glama
ShadowGraph

ShadowGraph

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to ShadowGraph

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      C
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Memory for LLM agents: a local graph where the agent keeps decisions, tasks, hypotheses and reasoning between sessions, and gets a summary of what is open and overdue on every return to a project. Works with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and opencode. Single Rust binary, no embedding model or LLM calls. Source-available (BSL 1.1), commercial use permitted.
      35
      59
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Persistent graph-based memory for AI agents, stored as plain markdown — no vector DB. Typed nodes and 11 relation types via 5 MCP tools (search, get, create, link, related), stdio and HTTP/SSE transports.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Local-first, source-traceable memory for AI agents — no LLM at ingest, $0 per message, zero data egress. Gives Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP client one shared persistent memory with semantic recall, belief revision, selective forgetting, and a provenance guard that blocks acting on stale or unconfirmed memories.
      23
      19 PyPI
      14
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Self-hosted decision memory for AI coding agents. Captures decisions with the alternatives you rejected, and warns before an agent re-proposes a rejected approach.
      4
      89
      Apache 2.0
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Local-first cross-agent memory for AI coding agents. Persistent, shared memory over MCP — what you tell one agent can be recalled by another — with all data stored in a single local SQLite file, no cloud and no API keys.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 20 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The write/record tools are mostly distinct, but the read and review surface has several near-overlapping tools: search vs retrieve vs recall vs context, and review vs review_context vs reconsider vs review_signals. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other, which helps, but the subtle distinctions still create meaningful misselection risk.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools use the same shadowgraph_ prefix and snake_case style, with mostly predictable verb_noun names. A few names are noun-only or less action-oriented, such as context and confidence_evidence, but the overall convention remains readable and consistent.

    Tool Count3/5

    Twenty tools is borderline heavy for this server, especially because several are specialized read/review variants. Each tool does appear to have a specific role in the complex memory/decision domain, but the surface feels larger than necessary.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the core lifecycle well: recording decisions, facts, attempts, memory, outcomes, confidence evidence, status changes, supersession, review, search, maintenance, and validation. Some referenced full-mode operations such as repair_plan and rebuild are not present, and explicit deletion/export paths are limited, but the main workflows are covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues