Context7
Up-to-date docs for AI agents
作者提供的说明(英文原文)
Local personal memory for agents as MCP tools — remember, recall, search, context, graph traversal.
这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。
我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。
选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。
你需要
你用的是哪个应用?
在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。
打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"link": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"link-mcp"
]
}
}
}在终端中运行这条命令
claude mcp add link -- uvx link-mcp粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"link": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"link-mcp"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json
{
"servers": {
"link": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"link-mcp"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。
你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。
这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。
它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。
我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月7日
注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 gowtham0992 验证,该账户拥有此仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点
在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置
它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表
与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。
它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。
注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。
它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。
GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(5.0.0)于12天前进入注册中心。
支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Python (uv)。
同一分类中有:Context7, Codebase Memory, Exa
同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。
如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i
Up-to-date docs for AI agents
Codebase knowledge graph for AI agents — 162 languages, sub-ms queries, 99% fewer tokens.
Connect AI agents to Exa for web search, content fetching, and multi-step research.
按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。
Link
Local memory for AI agents.
Link gives Codex, Claude, Cursor, Kiro, VS Code, Copilot, Antigravity, and other local agents the same source-backed memory, stored locally as Markdown.
Website · How it works · Memory · Tools & CLI · Setup · Docs · MCP Registry · PyPI · Homebrew
brew install gowtham0992/link/link # or: pip install link-mcp
lnk setup # wires every agent you have
Then work normally. Tell an agent "remember that we deploy on Tuesdays", approve it once, and every other agent recalls it in a new session tomorrow.
lnk status # is it wired up and being used?
lnk import claude-code # bring existing memory in brew install --cask gowtham0992/link/linkbar # macOS menu bar app
Memory lives in plain Markdown you can open, and nothing becomes durable without your approval.
Link is an open-source memory layer for local AI agents. Raw sources become an inspectable Markdown wiki. Explicit "remember this" requests become reviewable memories. Agents retrieve compact, source-backed context through the CLI, MCP, official skills, or the local viewer without dumping the whole wiki into a chat window.
The wiki is the storage layer. The product is durable memory that stays on your machine, remains readable in plain files, and can be shared across multiple agents instead of locked inside one vendor profile.
Ask in your own words; Link matches by meaning, not keywords. All local, all plain files.
Link gives agents five simple moves:
raw/.wiki/.Most agent sessions start from zero. You re-explain preferences, repo decisions, project constraints, and why something matters. Link turns that repeated context into local memory agents can query.
| Pain | Link's answer |
|---|---|
| Agents forget you between sessions. | Save reviewed preferences, decisions, facts, and project context. |
| Notes are private or messy. | Keep raw sources local, then turn them into source-backed Markdown. |
| Context windows are expensive. | Return compact query packets with provenance and follow-up actions. |
| Memory needs trust. | Every page and memory can be inspected, reviewed, archived, or forgotten. |
| Agents read a rule and break it anyway. | A reviewed memory can carry a rule that asks for your OK, or blocks the call, before it runs. |
| Memory goes stale as the code moves on. | Memories that name files, scripts, dependencies or functions are checked against the repository and flagged, not believed. |
| You cannot tell what the agent was given. | lnk receipt lists every memory that reached a session and whether it arrived whole. |
Link follows Andrej Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern: keep knowledge outside the chat window, make claims inspectable, and let context compound over time.
Every other agent-memory system stores memory as embeddings in a vector database or as an LLM-extracted graph. Link made five architectural commitments those designs cannot bolt on:
ask command: git push --force, deny write: migrations/**) that is checked before the agent's tool call, with no model and under a millisecond. Memories about code are re-read against your repository and flagged when the code moved on. Memories surface when the agent opens the file they describe, lnk compile writes reviewed memory into the files every agent already reads, and a receipt proves what reached each session.And the claims are measured, not asserted — see the benchmarks below. Named comparisons against Mem0/OpenMemory, Zep/Graphiti, and Letta: Why Link?
Plain files with no LLM in the memory layer, measured against the systems that have one everywhere:
| What | Link | For comparison |
|---|---|---|
| LoCoMo end-to-end QA — full 1,540 questions under mem0's own open harness | 84.8% | mem0's cloud platform: 83.2% under the same judge — with GPT-5 writing their answers and a budget model (claude-haiku-4-5) writing Link's. Confirmed by a second, independent judge (Tencent Hunyuan 3): 85.5% vs 83.6% |
| LongMemEval evidence retrieval — did the memory layer put the gold evidence in context? (deterministic, no LLM judge) | 99.4% of 500 questions | of 102 answer failures, only 3 were retrieval misses — the rest happened with the evidence already retrieved |
| Memory hygiene — junk stored over a simulated multi-month session stream | 0% (by construction, CI-enforced) | the same pipeline with governance off: 35.7% |
| Memory poisoning — 18 authored prompt-injection attacks on the capture pipeline (guardrail bypass, exfil conventions, credential planting, spoofed approvals, MemGhost-class untrusted-channel writes) | 0 reach the inbox unlabeled; 0 false positives on benign directives (CI-enforced) | to our knowledge the only published adversarial benchmark on an agent-memory write path |
| Token economics — real recall packets, measured through the query path | 1,697–3,752 tokens per recall (micro→large budget); a 64× larger store grows the packet 1.56×, and the last quadrupling moves it 0.3% | bounded by the budget you ask for, not by how much you have remembered; CI-enforced. Over MCP, the *first* response of a session also carries a one-time memory brief, bounded to a hard 4,000-character budget (~365 tokens of overhead, measured) — see RESULTS.md |
Enforced rules — 17 forbidden tool calls, including shell disguises (cd x && sudo …, quoting, bash -c), against 34 ordinary coding-agent calls | 17 of 17 caught, 0 of 34 stopped, under 0.2 ms per decision | a rule acts only after you review it; the agent cannot approve, clear or bypass one |
| Staleness checks — memories and instruction files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, Cursor rules…) checked against the repository | 0 false flags: 345 memory references in Link's own docs and 604 instruction-file references across eight public repositories; every planted deletion caught | a reference is reported only when git history shows the thing existed |
| Bundled 1,176-case recall benchmark — deterministic, no network, no LLM | pip default (lexical) hit@1 0.671; lnk setup provisions the fast local tier by default: 0.740; optional quality tier 0.789, plus rerank 0.798 | reproducible with one command; CI runs the suite and gates dataset integrity, not the score |
Every number ships with its config, judge model, caveats, and the experiments that *lost* — including LongMemEval end-to-end, where we re-judged both sides under the neutral Hunyuan 3 referee: mem0's GPT-5 answers score 91.0%, Link's budget-model answers 80.6%. Their published number holds up, and the gap tracks the answering model, not the memory layer — that's what the 99.4% evidence-retrieval row above isolates. Full methodology and reproduction steps: benchmarks/RESULTS.md.
Three questions every memory system should answer, and how Link answers them with mechanisms instead of promises:
"Is it on all my machines?" lnk sync moves reviewed memory through a git remote *you* control — a private GitHub repo, a homelab bare repo — with no server and no account. Secrets are scanned before anything leaves, conflicts become review items instead of git markers, and private captures never sync. lnk team-sync runs a shared team brain on the same rails.
"What did I believe back then?" Ask in plain language: lnk recall "where does local data live in March" returns what was true *then*, reconstructed from the dated files and their supersede lineage — while the same question without the date returns today's truth. Deterministic: a regex and a calendar, no model. Point-in-time accuracy from plain language: 1.00 on the hygiene benchmark's revised facts, identical to asking with an ISO date.
"Is my agent actually using this?" The question most memory systems cannot answer about themselves. Link records retrievals locally — session briefs pushed to agents, recalls they chose to make — and lnk wins answers with counts, while lnk digest reports the weekly story including memories that have *never* been retriev
只显示了开头部分;其余内容请在仓库中阅读