# Ontology-Grounded Project Memory for Coding Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13662 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13662/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 5 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19413/) (2025)
- [Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd Wave](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05876/) (2020)
- [A Toolkit for Generating Code Knowledge Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.09440/) (2020)
- [KCoEvo: A Knowledge Graph Augmented Framework for Evolutionary Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07581/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents have become the primary means of generating new code in many software projects, and the resulting velocity of changes makes keeping track of the reasons behind those changes challenging. This paper introduces MOOSEDev, a system designed to give coding agents structured, ontology-grounded project memory. The system captures architectural decisions, lessons, constraints, and rationales in a knowledge graph exposed to agents via a Model Context Protocol (MCP) interface. Records carry lifecycle status, provenance, and supersession links, queryable via MOOSE, a proprietary neurosymbolic engine that treats the symbolic layer as the primary reasoning substrate. We compared MOOSEDev against a production vector-memory tool on a neutral public corpus of 835 typed records. MOOSEDev returned the expected answer set essentially in full (0.98-1.00) on supersession, set-completeness, and negation questions, whereas the baseline's top-k retrieval surfaced between 6% and 27%. Conversely, relevance recall and token cost were largely equivalent between the two systems. We also describe a temporal commit-history bootstrap of our own codebase, a pre-registered live trial, and lessons learned.