In plain words: Instead of storing and searching text, this treats an agent's memory as a lifecycle: deciding what to keep and shrinking context to fit a budget. A working system scored 92% on a long-term memory test, while piling up history makes token costs grow quadratically.
Abstract · Agentic Context Management: Solving Agent Memory and Cost by Treating Them as Lifecycle and Architecture Problems
Production AI agents' failures are less often due to an inability to reason well and more often because they cannot manage what is in their reasoning context: conversation histories, large prompts, large tool definitions, and ballooning tool outputs. Agents drown in their own accumulating history while paying a token cost that grows every turn, producing missing recalls within and across conversations. The incumbent response treats this as a storage-and-retrieval problem. We argue that framing is too narrow. Actively managing what an agent holds in mind is a lifecycle, not merely a store: it spans deciding what to remember, extracting and structuring it, choosing the right store per data type, consolidating and forgetting while preserving provenance, deciding what is relevant now, anticipating what is needed next, and compacting context to a budget without losing what matters. In serious production this operates not over a single user but across an organizational scope hierarchy. We name this discipline Agentic Context Management (ACM) and decompose it into five primitives: architecting, ingesting, scoping, anticipating, and compacting & consolidation. We then make the economic case: naive context accumulation grows token cost quadratically in conversation length, crude summarization buys linear cost at the price of an accuracy cliff, and only validated compaction achieves linear cost with preserved fidelity. We describe a reference implementation, Maximem Synap, that realizes the five primitives as a multi-tenant service and reports 92% on LongMemEval and 93.2% on LoCoMo under the configuration detailed in Section 6. We close with dimensions existing benchmarks do not yet capture, latency, token efficiency, and context-rot resistance, and the frontier of decision-level and organization-level context the category points toward.
Gaurav Dadhich
arXiv:2607.21503 · cs.AI, cs.IR · submitted Jul 23, 2026
abstract · pdf · html · 23 pages, 6 figures, 4 tables. Evaluation harness and study data: github.com/maximem-ai
What's also the biggest killer is code rot. Agents are particularly good at death by thousand cuts. They implement something poorly, or incorrectly, or introduce a bad pattern into the project. Then they continue to amplify that badness over time, as they continue to copy from it on subsequent work. It spreads like a virus.
Keeping these seeds out of the project is very difficult, and cleaning up the rot is very difficult. It also seems like a hard problem to solve because following the existing codebase is something that is good when the code is good, but bad when it is bad. So, seemingly, the solution means more thinking and evaluation for every change that is being made.