inspeximus

Tamper-evident long-term memory for AI agents. Correct a fact once and the old value stays retired; erase a person and prove it; show an auditor what the agent knew when it acted. One zero-dependency Python file, plus an MCP server.

Quickstart · Docs · vs mem0 and Graphiti · Migrate from mem0 · EU AI Act and GDPR evidence · Claude Code, one line · Transparency log · PyPI

DOI

pip install "inspeximus[crypto]"
inspeximus demo          # a first result: offline, touches nothing of yours

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("memory.json")
m.remember("The staging database is db-3.internal", key="staging-db")
m.remember("The staging database is db-7.internal", key="staging-db")   # a correction
m.recall("which staging database")[0]["text"]   # 'The staging database is db-7.internal'
m.revert("staging-db")                            # and it is reversible, on purpose

Why inspeximus

Use it when the agent runs for days and the facts it holds will change under it, and when somebody can later ask what it knew and what it erased. That is the whole design brief.

agno is the one that is not ours. It ships an official integration example in its own cookbook, cookbook/11_memory/integrations/inspeximus_integration.py, merged in agno#10146 on 2026-09-20, alongside mem0, zep, memori and dakera. Their own README describes it as "inspeximus for corrections that stay corrected." We did not write that file's home and we do not maintain it, which is exactly why it is worth listing: it is one integration a reader can check without taking our word for anything. The same holds for agmi, an agent-memory integrity scorecard whose maintainer merged our three-row adapter, agmi/adapters/inspeximus_rows.py, in agmi#1 after reproducing it himself.

Not the right tool when you want a hosted service with a dashboard, a knowledge graph over documents, or the highest score on a conversational-recall benchmark. mem0, Zep and cognee lead there, and the comparison page says where each of us wins and where we do not.

The receipts

We measured the one thing the others do not publish: how often a corrected fact comes back.

Each system was run on its own native configuration, same task, same 30 trials:

_{n = 30 per system. mem0 measured at 2.0.11 (2026-07); mem0 is now on 2.0.18 and we have not re-run it — the version is stamped rather than the claim being restated as current. Full method, raw arrays and the re-runnable harness: RAMR · echo_resistance_backends_result.json}

Read the Graphiti row correctly — its echo defense did not fail. Our own raw output records echo_attributable_flips: 0 out of 26 corrections that were extracted correctly before the echo ran. Graphiti's bi-temporal invalidation held every one of them. The 13.3% above is four pre-echo extraction misses — the correction never made it into the graph — which is a different failure from the one this table is about. Stated as the mechanism rather than the headline: on echo-attributable resurrection, Graphiti scores 0%, the same as us, by keeping the supersession link at write time. That is the real finding here: what separates these systems is whether the link is recorded, not who recorded it.

Two numbers you can check in three seconds, with no API key

Measured 2026-08-25 against Hindsight 0.9.2 (vectorize-io, 21k stars) and mem0, each in its own native config, n=20. These two need no judge at all — they read the raw recall payload, so nothing depends on a model reading well:

Both competitors return the corrected value and the retired one, and leave the choice to the caller. That is a defensible design — a bitemporal store handing back old and new with validity markers is being honest — but it is a different promise from ours, and the difference is whose job disambiguation is.

The first row is free to verify. No key, no server, no network:

git clone https://github.com/DanceNitra/inspeximus && cd inspeximus
python probes/integrity_bench_store_resolves.py --systems inspeximus

It finishes in milliseconds and prints store-resolved=1.00 (resolved=20 both=0 stale=0 neither=0, n=20). Adding ,mem0 or ,hindsight reproduces their columns and costs their own extractor calls. Method, caveats and the cells where we do not win.

The bottom row is the point. Turn our guard off and we score zero — so the number is the mechanism, not the benchmark being kind to us.

EU AI Act and GDPR evidence, built in

Every write, correction, erasure and agent action leaves a signed, hash-chained record. A third party verifies it offline with the standard library, with no API key and no reason to trust the operator. The evidence is exportable today; the EU AI Act's high-risk duties apply from 2 December 2027 (Annex III systems) and 2 August 2028 (systems embedded in regulated products), and GDPR Article 17 has applied since 25 May 2018.

inspeximus compliance prints the evidence labelled by article. The full mapping, with the boundary of every row, is on the EU AI Act evidence page and in docs/AI_ACT.md. Scope in one sentence: inspeximus coverage lists 36 of 36 in-scope provider and deployer duties covered on a fresh store (3.12.0), stated per article; a certification is a separate act by someone else.

The 30 seconds that matter

Every memory library can store and retrieve. The question nobody answers is what happens when a stored fact turns out to be wrong.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("correction.json")

m.remember("The staging database is db-3.internal", key="staging-db")
m.remember("The staging database is db-7.internal", key="staging-db")   # a correction

m.recall("which staging database")[0]["text"]
# 'The staging database is db-7.internal'          <- the correction wins, every time

m.revert("staging-db")                              # and it is reversible
m.recall("which staging database")[0]["text"]
# 'The staging database is db-3.internal'

No embedding drift, no "the LLM usually picks the newer one". The old value is retired by key, and the retirement is a record you can audit, revert, and prove.

Say the old value again and it still does not come back. That is the part a recency rule cannot do: writing db-3 a third time, under the same key, leaves db-7 current. Going back is a decision you make on purpose, with remember(..., reaffirm=True) — the guard cannot un-supersede on its own. After a keyed write, read m.last_write["blocked"], or pass raise_on_block=True to get a WriteBlocked error instead of an id when a guard kept the old value.

The limit, because it is keyed: a statement written with no key is a new fact, not a correction, and it is outside the guard. If your pipeline re-ingests a stale document without keys, that text competes on its own merits. Both behaviours are measured in probes/does_a_restatement_take_the_key_back.py, which runs offline in a second.

Opt in to authority, and a weaker source stops overwriting a stronger one. By default the later keyed write wins. With Inspeximus(path, supersession="authority") a keyed write whose source={"doc": ..., "authority": 0.3} is below the current value's authority is retired on arrival and the current value stands; the verdict is on the record and in m.last_write. A summary carries its weakest parent's authority through derived_from, so restating a rumour at full authority does not launder it. Authority decides only when both sides declare one, so turning it on over an existing store changes nothing until your writers start declaring. Replayed through the store on the MemTX corpus, the default serves the labelled belief in 278 of 318 cases and authority in 307 of 318 cases, with none going the other way. Most of the stale-write cases are already caught by the echo guard, which retires a restated old value whatever its authority; what authority adds is a weaker source writing a value the key never held. The 11 it still misses are lost updates between writers of equal authority, which no authority rule can decide, and the rule is wrong in one shape worth knowing: a fact the system seeds at full authority can never be corrected by an agent writing below it. Both are in the docstring of _supersede_by_key. On a benchmark we did not write (MemTX, 318 replayable cases), the default mode serves the labelled belief in 278 of 318 cases and supersession="authority" in 307 of 318. The first number already contains the echo guard, a mechanism that shipped in 1.87.0, before anyone measured it on this corpus.

When someone asks you to prove it

Turn receipts on and every write joins a hash chain. The values alone cannot tell you whether somebody edited the file behind the library's back. The chain can.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("receipts.json", receipts=True)
m.remember("The staging database is db-3.internal", key="staging-db")
m.remember("The staging database is db-7.internal", key="staging-db")

m.verify_writes()[0]        # nothing has been touched yet
# True

# now somebody edits the store directly, turning db-7 into db-9
from inspeximus import sqlite_store
items = sqlite_store.load("receipts.json")
before = sqlite_store.snapshot(items)
edited = next(r for r in items if "db-7" in r["text"])
edited["text"] = edited["text"].replace("db-7", "db-9")
sqlite_store.save("receipts.json", items, before)

Inspeximus("receipts.json", receipts=True).verify_writes()[1][0].split(": ", 1)[1]
# 'its TEXT or KEY no longer matches its write receipt (edited after write)'

A store that already holds records with no chain, or a chain that started part-way, is covered in one call. Each record the chain does not name gets a receipt over the record as it stands now, marked backfill inside its hash and carrying the Merkle root of the batch. From that call on, an edit fails verify_writes() like any other; what happened before it, no later receipt can reach.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("older.json")            # a store written with receipts off
m.remember("The on-call rota is in the wiki", key="on-call")
m.verify_writes()[1][0].split(":", 1)[0]
# 'write receipts are DISABLED'

m.enable_receipts()["anchored_records"]
# 1
m.verify_writes()[0]
# True

Or from the shell: inspeximus receipts enable --backfill. The CHANGELOG entry for 3.0.0 carries the measurement on our own store.

A key that no longer applies is ended with retire, not with a placeholder write: a keyed write replaces, so a placeholder would become the key's new active value. retire leaves nothing active, keeps every value in history(key) with the reason, and declares itself in the receipt chain.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("rota.json")
m.remember("The on-call rota is in the wiki", key="on-call")
m.retire("on-call", "the rota moved to the pager tool")
m.current("on-call")
# None
m.history("on-call")[0]["reason"]
# 'the rota moved to the pager tool'

Many processes, one store

The row writer appends a content-free row to memory_events inside the transaction that writes the rows, so another process tails the table by seq and sees a commit on its next call, with no reload and no broker. current(key) answers repeat reads from an L1 keyed by (tenant, agent, key), so a hit primed by one agent is never served to another.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

lead = Inspeximus("crew.json")
worker = Inspeximus("crew.json")
tip = worker.events_tip()

lead.remember("The plan is: ship on Friday", key="plan")
lead.publish_event("plan.updated", {"to": "worker"}, agent_id="lead")

[e["type"] for e in worker.poll_events(since_seq=tip)]
# ['record.added', 'plan.updated']
worker.current("plan")["text"]
# 'The plan is: ship on Friday'

What the agent did, bound to what it knew

An audit-trail tool signs the agent's actions. The action ledger does that too, and binds each action to the memory the agent held at that moment: the store's state digest and the ids the last recall returned. A fact corrected between two actions gives the two actions two different digests, so a reader can tell that the first ran on the old value and the second on the new one, from the chain, not from anyone's account of it.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus
from inspeximus.actions import ActionLedger

m = Inspeximus("deploys.json", receipts=True)
m.remember("The staging database is db-3.internal", key="staging-db")
led = ActionLedger(m, actor="deploy-agent")

target = m.recall("staging database")[0]["text"]
with led.action("tool:deploy", inputs={"target": target}) as a:
    a.output({"deployed_to": target})

m.remember("The staging database is db-7.internal", key="staging-db")   # the correction
target = m.recall("staging database")[0]["text"]
with led.action("tool:deploy", inputs={"target": target}) as a:
    a.output({"deployed_to": target})

led.what_it_knew(0)["recalled_now"][0]["current"]["status"]   # 'superseded'
led.what_it_knew(1)["recalled_now"][0]["current"]["status"]   # 'active'
led.verify()                                                   # (True, [])

Content-free by default: inputs and outputs are stored as salted SHA-256 digests. The operator who kept the transcript can still ask led.matches(seq, inputs=prompt, output=answer) and get a yes or no on whether that is what the model was given and what came back; one changed character is a no, and the check needs the salt file, so nobody else can run it. Signed with the store's receipt key when it has one. inspeximus actions verify checks the file offline; with the store present it also checks that every entry's last_receipt still exists in the memory chain, so a rewritten memory history is caught from the action side. INSPEXIMUS_ACTIONS=1 makes the MCP server record every tool call, and inspeximus.integrations.langchain.InspeximusActionCallback records LangChain tool and model calls. Probe: probes/what_the_agent_knew_when_it_acted.py, three tamper controls, each fails.

Two more event kinds share the chain. led.oversight("override", "ops-lead", refers_to=3, reason=...) records a human decision about an action, with the person or role who made it (the Act's Art. 14 and GDPR Art. 22 records); the reference must resolve and the verifier re-checks it. led.disclosure("s1", "You are chatting with an AI assistant.", channel="web") records an Art. 50 disclosure per session. inspeximus.subject_rights.export_subject(m, "crm/alice", ledger=led) answers a GDPR Art. 15 access request with every record whose source resolves to the subject, exactly as forget_subject resolves it, and rectify(m, key=..., text=..., actor=..., reason=..., ledger=led) is an Art. 16 correction with a receipt naming who asked. led.incident("...", "serious", "dpo", refers_to=[3, 4]) opens an Art. 73 record with the 15-day clock from the moment of awareness, and incident_report(seq) is the report skeleton. inspeximus compliance reads all of it from the ledger, through its verifier, into 22 article-labelled controls.

Two documents are generated from the same evidence. inspeximus technical-documentation --out annex_iv.md is the Annex IV skeleton (Art. 11) with the sections evidence can fill written from the store and ledger, the Art. 13(3)(f) instructions for use included, and 24 provider fields marked OPERATOR INPUT REQUIRED. inspeximus deployer-report --out deployer.md is the deployer's side (Art. 26): oversight recorded, incidents and the Art. 73 clock, the age of the oldest kept log entry against the six-month floor (reported as not yet testable until the log is that old), disclosures, plus a GDPR Art. 35(7) DPIA appendix and an Art. 27(1) FRIA appendix that cross-references it. Both name every field they could not fill. inspeximus registration-export --section A writes the Annex VIII fields for the EU database (Art. 49) the same way.

A ledger kept for years is rotated rather than cut. inspeximus actions archive --keep-days 400 moves the older entries into an archive file beside the ledger and starts the live file with a signed checkpoint naming the archive, its hash and the archived tail; the chain is unbroken, actions verify follows the checkpoint into the archive, and the live file alone reports the archived range as not verified rather than passing over it. inspeximus actions attest --policy-days 183 --actor dpo appends a signed statement of the oldest entry the ledger accounts for and whether the six-month floor of Art. 19 and Art. 26(6) has been observed. inspeximus actions timestamp --url https://freetsa.org/tsr asks an RFC 3161 authority to stamp the tail and chains the token in, so an auditor has a third party's time for everything before it, verifiable with openssl ts -verify.

inspeximus actions timeline --session s1 reconstructs one workflow from the chain, content-free: each step with the memory digest the agent held, the model, the actor, and the oversight or incident that refers to it. inspeximus actions export-trail writes the ledger in the IETF draft-sharif-agent-audit-trail-04 format, hash-chained per RFC 8785, for tooling that reads that format; --verify checks any such file. inspeximus actions lifecycle substantial_modification --actor cto --note "..." records the Art. 3(23) change that ends a grandfathered system's Art. 111(2) exemption, and lifecycle decommission --disposition erased records what happened to the memory at end of life.

Memory can be partitioned per agent and per process, the shape the CNIL's 2026 note on agentic AI asks for: inspeximus partitions open triage-2026-09-16 --kind context --max-age-days 1 --max-records 200 opens a scope whose writes are tagged, partitions sweep applies every open partition's expiry and cap with tombstones, and partitions close NAME --actor ends the process (a context partition erases its records at close). partitions report shows what is past expiry now and how much memory sits outside any partition.

Where the store is written

You do not pick a storage format. A new store is written as rows, and an existing JSON store is converted the first time this version opens it: the conversion re-reads what it wrote and refuses unless the record count and the id order both survive, and it leaves the original beside the store as memory.json.pre-rows.bak. Encrypted stores stay a single encrypted blob, because at-rest encryption covers the whole file.

Rows are there because every write used to rewrite the whole file, and because a rewrite cannot merge a concurrent writer's records the way a row write can.

One persisted write, both formats, three independent trials of thirty writes each (probes/one_write_two_formats_across_store_sizes.py):

The gap is a function of file size: rewriting a file gets more expensive as the file grows and writing one row does not, so the gain arrives with the records. Take the smallest row as the least reliable one. At a thousand records the two are close enough that separate runs of this probe have come out both ways, and in the run behind this table one of the three trials still did, which is why the probe reports every trial rather than an average and says so when the direction is not stable. The table above is generated from the receipt the probe writes (tools/sync_store_format_table.py), so it is what one run measured rather than what we remember.

Under concurrent writers, a caller that drops the store's own StoreChangedOnDisk instead of retrying landed 199 of 384 records in its worst trial at 48 processes, while the row store landed every record in 4 of 4 trials at every width tested. That gap belongs to the caller and not to the format: given the retry the error prescribes, the whole-file store keeps up (probes/what_a_concurrent_writer_is_told_against_what_the_store_keeps.py). See probes/twelve_writers_and_the_one_that_stopped_writing.py. Both probes re-measure the whole-file baseline on the machine they run on rather than quoting ours, so a slower machine reports a smaller gap instead of a false one.

Two things to know before you upgrade:

• A store written by this version cannot be read by 2.26.1 or earlier. Those versions decode the file as UTF-8 and raise UnicodeDecodeError. To go back, rename memory.json.pre-rows.bak over the store and pin the older release.
• The rollback copy is deleted by the first erasure. forget, forget_subject and forget_pii remove it, because a copy this library made without being asked is not somewhere personal data gets to survive a deletion request. erasure_certificate() reports what happened to that file by name, so the end of your rollback window is recorded rather than silent. To keep the copy, set INSPEXIMUS_KEEP_CONVERSION_BACKUP=1: the certificate then declares the backup as data the erasure did not reach, which is the trade you are making.

INSPEXIMUS_STORE_FORMAT=json keeps the old format, for a store that other tooling reads directly.

provenance(key=...) answers the rest in one call: every value the key has held and the policy that retired each one, where the current value came from including taint inherited through summaries, whether the record still matches what its receipt committed to, and a limits field naming what none of it proves. Erasure works the same way. forget_subject() hard-deletes every memory attributable to a person, including the summaries that inherited it through lineage, and leaves a signed content-free tombstone, so a later reader can tell a deliberate erasure from tampering. erasure_certificate() makes that checkable by a third party with no private key and no reason to trust us.

inspeximus compliance prints the same evidence labelled by article, with its own scope attached: the duties inspeximus coverage lists, and not a certification.

Proving when, and whether the clock belonged to anyone

Every clock in the system belongs to the operator being audited, so timestamp.py gets an RFC 3161 token from a third party instead. Under eIDAS Article 41 a QUALIFIED timestamp carries a rebuttable presumption of the time it shows, and an ordinary one carries none. Nothing in a token says which you have.

inspeximus timestamp trusted-lists builds an offline cache of the EU trusted lists, and inspeximus timestamp qualified <token> --trusted-list <cache> --when <the date it was made> answers for one token. The exit code separates qualified from not qualified from undetermined.

Pass the date the token was made, not today. Qualified standing is granted and withdrawn over time: of the 1477 qualified timestamp services published across 25 territories, 570 (39%) have held both a qualified and a non-qualified status. One real Austrian service returns four different answers from one certificate with only the date changing.

It reports membership and nothing else. It does not check the signature on the trusted list, it says nothing about whether the token is authentic (verify_with_openssl does that, and both must pass), and before a list's earliest record it answers UNKNOWN rather than "no".

Scope. The rows above are the duties inspeximus coverage lists, stated per article. The Act's high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027 for standalone Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for those embedded in regulated products; the evidence they will ask for (Art. 12 event logging, Art. 19 retention, Art. 15 accuracy and robustness) is what the store already keeps and exports. docs/AI_ACT.md maps each duty onto the store and marks where the mapping stops.

A log the reader checks without asking you for anything

Everything above holds while you are honest. None of it stops you keeping two histories and showing each reader the one that suits, because you serve the answer and you also wrote it.

So tools/publish_static_log.py writes the log as ordinary files instead: the head, the COSE key set, every leaf hash, every receipt, the text of every entry, and a verify.py that runs on the standard library alone. A reader downloads four files and checks the Merkle root against the leaves themselves. This is where certificate transparency went, not a shortcut around it: C2SP's static-ct-api serves a log as cacheable files because that is cheaper to run and harder to equivocate with than an API.

Ours is live at dancenitra.github.io/inspeximus/transparency. Each entry is one number this project publishes, with the sentence it appears in and the command that reproduces it.

WHETHER IT HOLDS ALL OF THEM IS A THING YOU CHECK, NOT A THING WE ASSERT, and this paragraph used to assert it. python tools/seed_claims_log.py --log transparency/claims.log --check compares the registry against the log and names anything not yet recorded; it needs no key, and CI runs it on every push, so a gap is visible to you at the same moment it is visible to us. There is a gap now: four claims are registered and unlogged, because appending needs the signing key and the key is not where the seeding happens. A log that is behind and says so is the point of the exercise; a log described as complete while it is behind is the failure it exists to prevent.

What a static log cannot do, said here rather than discovered later: nothing accepts a registration over HTTP. Writing happens where the signing key is. For a live endpoint, scrapi.py serves draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-11 and deploy/ has the container images.

The witness is the part you cannot run yourself

A log tells you it is internally consistent. It cannot tell you it is the same log somebody else was shown, and no amount of signing by the operator fixes that. Only a party who REMEMBERS a previous head can catch a rewrite, and only if that memory lives somewhere the operator cannot reach.

inspeximus witness watch is that party. It fetches a log it does not operate, recomputes the root from the leaves rather than reading it out of the head, and compares against the head it last accepted by rebuilding that head from the leaves published now. Verdicts are EXTENDS, FIRST_CONTACT (which says out loud that it proves nothing yet), FORK, ROLLBACK, and MALFORMED for a log that contradicts itself. A refusal does not update its memory, because a witness that forgets what it just caught reports EXTENDS on the rewritten log next time.

Two commands are the whole setup, and the first run commits you to nothing:

pip install inspeximus
inspeximus witness watch --url https://dancenitra.github.io/inspeximus-log/log --state witness.json

deploy/witness-template.yml runs the same command daily from any public repository for nothing. Running one against our log is the most useful thing an outsider can do here, and it commits you to nothing: you are not vouching that any entry is true, only recording whether the history shown to you today extends the one shown to you before.

Checking the Bitcoin anchor, offline

Each published head is stamped with OpenTimestamps, and the receipt is a .ots file. The usual way to check one is the ots command, which pulls in python-bitcoinlib; on Windows that import reaches for libssl through ctypes and crashes before reading a byte of the proof. So the check is built in.

inspeximus ots upgrade <the .ots receipt>          # which block covers it? asks the calendars
inspeximus ots verify <the stamped file> --upgrade     --block-header <the 80-byte header as hex>     # ANCHORED, or MISMATCH

You supply the block header, from your own node or from any explorer. That is what makes it offline: you choose where the block came from, and nothing about your data leaves the machine. --upgrade is the only part that uses the network, and it asks a calendar about a digest the calendar already holds.

Exit codes: 0 ANCHORED, 1 MISMATCH, 3 PENDING or INCOMPLETE. A proof with only calendar promises is PENDING, which is neither an error nor a pass, so it has its own code rather than being folded into either. An anchored proof says these exact bytes existed before that block was mined. It says nothing about whether anything in them is true.

If the verdict is MISMATCH and your file came out of a git checkout on Windows, read the line about line endings that the verifier prints: the receipts are stamped over LF bytes, and a converted copy differs from them without anybody having tampered with anything.

The key you check the log with, published twice

To verify our hosted log, you need our verification key. Fetching it from the host you are checking means asking the host how to check the host: an operator who can rewrite the log can rewrite the key beside it, and every signature still verifies. So the key is published here as well.

Both copies now live on GitHub under one account: this README, and the log's public mirror, which publishes a snapshot only after a workflow verifies it against the key pinned in that repository. That makes the two copies a check against a quiet split, not against GitHub or against us. The reference that is independent of both is the raw public key, 9fb780dd72894867c6dac8e140cc78d755617147d20cfd26bfe557190f65ac49, which is also held on paper off-line.

92.5.74.17.sslip.io/log+41dfe27a+AZ+3gN1yiUhnxtrI4UDMeNdVYXFH0gz9Jr/lVxkPZaxJ

SHA-256 of that line: 1017ff229193fa867e1f73758df24e440ebfad1710e1af49e296a5fe4f00783c

The same line is served at /log/checkpoint.vkey. The two must be byte-identical. If they differ, do not trust either one, and open an issue. 41dfe27a is the four-byte key id from c2sp.org/signed-note, which selects which key to try and is not a security boundary.

diff <(curl -s https://dancenitra.github.io/inspeximus-log/log/checkpoint.vkey)      <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DanceNitra/inspeximus/main/README.md |
       sed -n '/checkpoint-vkey:begin/,/checkpoint-vkey:end/p' | sed -n '3p')

tools/check_published_key.py runs that comparison, and CI runs it daily, so a rotation cannot split the two copies quietly. Two copies raise the cost of a silent swap from one write to two on two systems. They do not make us trustworthy, because both copies are ours. Independence comes from the witness, which remembers a head we cannot reach.

The next five minutes

The demo above ends at revert(). Here is what to do with it.

Put it under a real agent. Nothing to wire: remember on the way in, recall on the way out. The point is the key, because that is what makes a later correction land on the same fact instead of becoming a second one.

from inspeximus import Inspeximus

m = Inspeximus("memory.json")
user_id, choice, user_question = "u-1", "dark mode", "what does this user prefer"

m.remember(f"user prefers {choice}", key=f"pref::{user_id}")      # correcting later needs the key

context = [hit["text"] for hit in m.recall(user_question, k=5)]
print(context[0])
# user prefers dark mode

If you use a framework, there are adapters for LangChain, LangGraph, LlamaIndex, CrewAI, AutoGen, Haystack, Google ADK, OpenAI Agents and Pydantic-AI — with a ledger recording which are verified against a live install and which are recorded broken, rather than a wall of logos: docs/INTEGRATIONS.md.

Work through the examples in order. They run offline with no key, each one printing what it did:

Find your way around the code. docs/CORE_MAP.md lists every public method and the line it starts on, generated from the AST and re-checked in CI.

Then decide whether to believe any of it, using the two commands under Check us without trusting us.

Use it in Claude Code (one line)

From inside Claude Code, no pip, no config file:

/plugin marketplace add DanceNitra/inspeximus
/plugin install inspeximus@inspeximus

Or from a shell, after pip install inspeximus:

inspeximus install --ide claude     # also: cursor, windsurf, codex, cline

Both wire an MCP server with 134 tools and the same hooks. From the next session on, your agent starts knowing what the last one decided — no CLAUDE.md editing, no re-explaining:

• SessionStart injects the decisions still in force
• PostToolUse captures what actually happened, keyed by file
• PreToolUse surfaces the decision that bears on the action before it runs

Verified with the Claude Code CLI on a clean profile, both routes, across two sessions. The Code tab of the Claude desktop app is not verified.

What you get

Correction as a first-class operation. remember(key=...) retires the previous value for that key. revert(key) restores it. history(key) shows the chain. All deterministic, all auditable.

Erasure that can be proven. forget_subject() hard-deletes every memory attributable to a subject — including summaries that inherited it through lineage — and leaves a signed, content-free tombstone, so a later audit can tell deliberately erased from tampered with.

A deletion check that reads the bytes, on any store. delete() returning success tells you a row is gone from an index. It does not tell you the value has left the disk, and for an erasure obligation that is the part that matters. scan_residue(root, values) searches a directory for values that are supposed to be gone and separates three outcomes that are usually collapsed into one: LIVE (a table still holds it in a row), UNRECLAIMED (the bytes are there but in no live row, because the storage engine has not reused the page yet, which is a property of the engine and not a vendor defect), and PLAIN (a log, trace or backup file still contains it). Nothing about it is specific to inspeximus: point it at a vector database, a SQLite history, a JSONL trace, or another library's data directory, and it answers for that deployment.

residue_certificate() turns one of those scans into a document somebody else can check. It records a SHA-256 for every file it read, so a third party re-walks the same directory with verify_residue_certificate() and confirms both that the search covered the bytes it claims and that they have not changed since. The signature identifies the scanner without making the finding true; what makes it evidence is that anyone can re-run it. From the shell: inspeximus residue --root DIR --value SECRET --cert-out cert.json, then inspeximus residue-verify cert.json --root DIR.

Read the scope before treating a clean result as an all-clear. The match is literal and case-sensitive, so a lowercased or re-spaced copy of the value is missed by design; a file the scan could not read is reported and keeps the verdict negative, because "clean" must never mean "we did not look there". Both limits travel inside the signed certificate.

Provenance you can check, not just store. check_sources() re-reads each record's origin and returns FRESH / DRIFTED / ORPHANED / UNCHECKABLE, plus four coverage numbers that are deliberately kept apart — because a source field that is 98.3% populated and 0.01% re-fetchable is a schema, not a guarantee. (Those two numbers are ours, measured on our own production store.)

Current-state applicability. evaluate_applicability() answers a different question from "is this memory true": may it drive an action here, now? Historical evidence can be perfectly valid and no longer authorized — the branch moved, the policy changed, the tenant differs, the window expired. Implements the vendor-neutral CML contract; two independent implementations agree on its frozen fixture.

Multi-tenant isolation. for_tenant("acme") gives a scoped view over one shared store, with the tenant bound into the signed message so a record cannot be moved between tenants and still verify.

An audit trail in formats an auditor already reads. A hash chain proves your records were not edited. It does not tell a third party who wrote them, what they are about, or when, and those are the three things somebody checking your system actually asks. Four IETF standards answer them, and inspeximus emits all four with no dependencies:

pip install "inspeximus[crypto]"

from inspeximus import Inspeximus, new_receipt_keypair, verify_transparent_statement

secret, public = new_receipt_keypair()
m = Inspeximus("memory.json", receipts=True, receipt_key=secret)
m.remember("The staging database is db-7.internal", key="staging-db")

doc = m.transparent_statement(0, issuer="did:web:your-company.example")
# -> a COSE_Sign1 carrying your claim AND its inclusion proof, checkable by anyone

inspeximus.transparency.TransparencyService registers statements from other parties under a policy it publishes inside its own log, and python -m inspeximus.scrapi serves that over the HTTP surface SCITT clients speak (draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-11), so a tool nobody here wrote can use it.

What signing does not buy you, stated up front. A Receipt proves inclusion in a log. It cannot prove that log is the only one you showed people; that needs independent witnesses, which is why witnessed_head() collects k-of-n co-signatures and treats a refusal as the alarm rather than an error. A timestamp says a third party saw a digest at a time; full verification of the token is delegated to openssl ts -verify rather than hand-rolled, because a partial CMS parser that answered "valid" would pass tokens a real verifier rejects. And none of this is compliance: no regulation requires a signed ledger. It is evidentiary quality for a duty to demonstrate, and it is worded that way everywhere.

Zero dependencies. One file for the core: copy inspeximus/core.py anywhere and it imports and runs with nothing installed. Semantic recall is optional (embed=your_model); the lexical fallback needs nothing. The MCP server, encryption and the framework adapters are separate modules, all opt-in.

Works with

langchain · langgraph-store · llamaindex · haystack · autogen · pydantic-ai · google-adk · memoryagentbench · hermes-agent

For Hermes Agent, install inspeximus into the venv Hermes runs from, not into your shell's Python (how). Install Hermes with its own installer: the PyPI package hermes-agent is 0.19.0, which never loads the provider.

14 of 14 verified against current upstream, 0 recorded broken. Three were broken a day ago and the list said so, which is the only reason you can believe this line: openai-agents was missing an attribute the SDK type-checks on, the store's single-writer guard was firing on this process's own threads under langgraph-checkpointer, and CrewAI replaced its storage protocol wholesale, so that one needed a second class rather than a repair. The counts are read from docs/integration_conformance.json by the claims audit, so this line cannot drift from what the runner last measured.

A "works with" list that only names successes is a logo wall. This one tells you which adapter will break before you build on it.

How this is tested

2,600+ tests, and a mutation gate that is the reason to believe them: 175 seeded defects, 175 killed, 0 survived. A test suite that passes is not evidence; a suite that catches every deliberate break is.

Every number on this page is registered in docs/CLAIMS.md, with the exact command that recomputes it. If one disagrees with your run, that is a bug report we want.

The five at-rest attacks of the agmi conformance suite (tamper, truncate, delete a middle entry, reorder, forge), run against the SQLite file behind a store the way its attacker does: with receipts on and a key, 5 of 5 detected, each with a reason that names it. When the attacker also holds the receipts sidecar, which write access to the store's directory gives them, and removes the receipt of every record they delete, still every one of them: after every receipt the store writes the chain's head to the user's config home, outside the store's directory, and verify_writes() reports a chain shorter than that head. An attacker who also holds the config home removes the head, and then 4 of 5 detected: a middle deletion still breaks the signed chain, a tail truncation does not, and that case needs an anchor() held off the machine plus verify_consistency(). Detection is verify_writes(), the audit call; recall() serves the altered record either way. With receipts off, the default, the verifier refuses to vouch for the store at all, touched or not, which is scored as unverifiable rather than as detection. Probe: probes/five_at_rest_attacks_on_the_store_with_receipts_off_and_on.py.

Check us without trusting us

Two commands. Neither needs an API key, a service, or any data of ours.

python claims_audit.py

Forty seconds. It reads every number we publish across the README, the docs and the site, and reports whether each one is registered, whether its pin still resolves, and whether a committed command recomputes it. It ends either with a list of problems or with one line:

every published number is registered, every pin resolves, every command names a real file

The counts are deliberately not quoted here. Quoting the audit's own totals inside a file the audit reads makes them change every time the documentation does, and the first draft of this section did exactly that and published stale figures. Run it and read the current ones.

What the run will show you: a handful of rows marked WITHDRAWN. Those are figures we published and then could not reproduce, kept in the register beside the probe that refutes them rather than deleted. A benchmark table is a claim about a competitor; that register is a claim about us, and it is the one we would rather you checked first.

python probes/integrity_bench_revert.py --systems inspeximus --judge local --n 5

Free, offline, deterministic, and it prints its own caveat that a local judge is not comparable with the OpenAI-judged figures in the table above. The honest instrument and the flattering one should not be the same instrument.

Documentation

Who this is for

You are building an agent that runs for weeks, not minutes. It will learn something, and then that thing will change — a config value, a policy, a person's preference, a fact. The failure that will cost you is not the agent forgetting. It is the agent confidently remembering the old answer.

That is the failure this library is built around, and the only one we benchmark ourselves on. Most demos in this space show the write. This one shows the retraction, because that is the operation your agent will be judged by.

The name

The name is from medieval charters. A king, bishop, abbot or town council opened with inspeximus, "we have inspected", reciting an older document in full to record that they had examined it, usually confirming it, and sealing the result so a later reader could check. It attested that the copy faithfully matched the original, not that the original was true. Same guarantee here, and provenance() says so in a limits field rather than leaving you to find out.

Citing

Archived on Zenodo with a version-independent DOI — 10.5281/zenodo.21708778. Machine-readable metadata is in CITATION.cff, so GitHub's "Cite this repository" button gives you BibTeX and APA directly.

MIT licensed. Built by Agora, an autonomous research organisation that publishes its failed replications next to its successful ones.

mcp-name: io.github.DanceNitra/inspeximus