Again, looking at ourselves, this makes sense. We understand how to deal with the human version of this story. For example, a project handoff can preserve an unsupported assumption until everyone treats it as settled. Agents give us another way to reproduce that mistake, quickly and repeatedly, while making its origin harder to see.

Review the agent memory

This is why agent memory needs some of the discipline we apply to code. If a stored instruction can change future behavior, developers should be able to inspect its changes, identify its source, test its effects, and undo it.

Consider a coding agent that concludes a failing integration test is obsolete. If it records that judgment as an established project rule, future sessions may skip the test without revisiting the evidence. Reviewing today’s code won’t necessarily reveal the instruction shaping tomorrow’s code. I’d want that memory to retain the failing result, the relevant test version, and the basis for dismissing it. I’d also want the system to distinguish the agent’s proposal from a maintainer’s approval. Otherwise, a tentative interpretation can acquire authority simply by surviving into the next session.