JDSS/mem0
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs(cookbooks): rename the adjuster to Sarah and sync outputs to a fresh live run

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
kartik-mem0
2026-08-27 15:20:34 +05:30
parent 6aa0c27212
commit 4fb96e9518
2 changed files with 299 additions and 148 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/cookbooks/essentials/agent-memory-insurance-claims.mdx
+20 -20
View File
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: Give Agents Shared Working Memory
description: Keep a claims adjuster's personal preferences separate from a claim's shared decisions using user_id, agent_id, and two sets of custom instructions.
---
Priya is a claims adjuster. Every claim she opens should remember how she likes things drafted. Every claim itself should remember its own decisions, no matter which adjuster opens it next. A single `user_id` and one project-wide instruction set cannot hold both without one leaking into the other.
Sarah is a claims adjuster. Every claim she opens should remember how she likes things drafted. Every claim itself should remember its own decisions, no matter which adjuster opens it next. A single `user_id` and one project-wide instruction set cannot hold both without one leaking into the other.
<Info icon="cloud">
**Works with:** Mem0 Platform (`MemoryClient`)
@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ Grab an API key from the <a href="https://app.mem0.ai/?utm_source=oss&utm_medium
## Make It Work Once
Claim CLM-48211 is a warehouse fire loss for Meridian Logistics, and Priya is the adjuster who opened it. Set two rule sets on the project once: `custom_instructions` for what belongs to the adjuster, `agent_custom_instructions` for what belongs to the claim.
Claim CLM-48211 is a warehouse fire loss for Meridian Logistics, and Sarah is the adjuster who opened it. Set two rule sets on the project once: `custom_instructions` for what belongs to the adjuster, `agent_custom_instructions` for what belongs to the claim.
<CodeGroup>
```python Python
ADJUSTER = "adjuster_priya_cookbook_demo"
ADJUSTER = "adjuster_sarah_cookbook_demo"
CLAIM = "claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo"
user_instructions = """Your Task: Track what a claims adjuster needs remembered about themselves, not about any single claim.
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ client.project.update(
)
```
```typescript TypeScript
const ADJUSTER = "adjuster_priya_cookbook_demo";
const ADJUSTER = "adjuster_sarah_cookbook_demo";
const CLAIM = "claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo";
const userInstructions = `Your Task: Track what a claims adjuster needs remembered about themselves, not about any single claim.
@@ -133,12 +133,12 @@ await client.add(
</CodeGroup>
<Info icon="check">
Expected output: one memory, attributed to `CLAIM`: `"Reserve on claim CLM-48211 was raised to $1.8 million because the structural engineer's report indicated the warehouse requires a full rebuild rather than a repair"`. Nothing lands on Priya's personal shelf, the instructions exclude claim decisions from it.
Expected output: two memories, both attributed to `CLAIM`: `"Reserve for claim CLM-48211 was increased to $1.8 million to cover a full rebuild, as indicated by the structural engineer's report"`, plus the engineer's rebuild finding stored as its own durable fact. Nothing lands on Sarah's personal shelf, the instructions exclude claim decisions from it.
</Info>
## The Problem
Suppose Marcus, a second adjuster, needs to pick up CLM-48211 while Priya is out. If claim decisions only ever went on the acting adjuster's `user_id`, with no `agent_id` and no `agent_custom_instructions`, Marcus's own memory would be empty no matter what Priya decided:
Suppose Marcus, a second adjuster, needs to pick up CLM-48211 while Sarah is out. If claim decisions only ever went on the acting adjuster's `user_id`, with no `agent_id` and no `agent_custom_instructions`, Marcus's own memory would be empty no matter what Sarah decided:
```python
marcus_personal = client.get_all(filters={"user_id": "adjuster_marcus_cookbook_demo"})
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ print(marcus_personal["count"])
0
```
Marcus has never talked to Mem0 before, so an empty personal shelf is expected. The real gap is structural: if the reserve decision above had gone on Priya's `user_id` alone, it would live there permanently, and Marcus would have no identifier that reaches it. The claim's history would be trapped on one person's shelf.
Marcus has never talked to Mem0 before, so an empty personal shelf is expected. The real gap is structural: if the reserve decision above had gone on Sarah's `user_id` alone, it would live there permanently, and Marcus would have no identifier that reaches it. The claim's history would be trapped on one person's shelf.
## Fix It: Give the Claim Its Own Shelf
@@ -176,19 +176,19 @@ for (const r of marcusView.results) {
```
</CodeGroup>
**Output** (after the full scenario below has run, four claim facts on file):
**Output** (from the full notebook run, four claim facts on file):
```
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] Assistant noted that the cause of loss for claim CLM-48211 is faulty wiring identified by the fire marshal's report
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] Reserve on claim CLM-48211 was raised to $1.8 million because the structural engineer's report indicated the warehouse requires a full rebuild rather than a repair
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] The building coverage limit on the Meridian Logistics policy for claim CLM-48211 is $2,400,000 with a $25,000 deductible
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] Assistant recorded that subrogation is being pursued against Voss Electrical for claim CLM-48211 based on the fire marshal's finding of faulty wiring as the ignition source
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] Reserve for claim CLM-48211 was increased to $1.8 million to cover a full rebuild, as indicated by the structural engineer's report
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] The structural engineer's report for claim CLM-48211 states that the warehouse requires a full rebuild rather than a repair
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] The building coverage limit for claim CLM-48211 under the Meridian Logistics policy is $2,400,000 with a $25,000 deductible
- [claims_agent_clm48211_cookbook_demo] Assistant noted that subrogation will be pursued against Voss Electrical, with the fire marshal's report identifying faulty wiring as the ignition source
```
Marcus sees the full claim history and none of Priya's personal preferences, because those never carried `agent_id` attribution in the first place.
Marcus sees the full claim history and none of Sarah's personal preferences, because those never carried `agent_id` attribution in the first place.
## Build On It: One Message, Two Shelves
A single message can touch both shelves in one `add()` call. Priya makes a claim decision and states a personal preference in the same breath:
A single message can touch both shelves in one `add()` call. Sarah makes a claim decision and states a personal preference in the same breath:
<CodeGroup>
```python Python
@@ -212,10 +212,10 @@ await client.add(
```
</CodeGroup>
**Output:** three memories from one call. Two land on the claim shelf (the subrogation decision, and a cause-of-loss fact pulled out of the same sentence even though it was never stated on its own), one lands on Priya's personal shelf (the bullet-point formatting rule).
**Output:** two memories from one call, one per shelf. The subrogation decision lands on the claim shelf with the fire marshal's faulty-wiring finding folded into its reasoning, and the bullet-point formatting rule lands on Sarah's personal shelf.
<Warning>
Extraction makes judgment calls, it does not mirror your instructions line by line. Earlier in this scenario, a one-off policy-limit lookup (excluded by name in the instructions above) still landed on the claim shelf, because it was judged a durable fact worth keeping for the life of the claim. Read what actually got stored with `get_all()` rather than assuming the instructions were applied literally.
Extraction makes judgment calls, it does not mirror your instructions line by line. In the full notebook run, a one-off policy-limit lookup (excluded by name in the instructions above) still landed on the claim shelf, because it was judged a durable fact worth keeping for the life of the claim. Read what actually got stored with `get_all()` rather than assuming the instructions were applied literally.
</Warning>
## Production Patterns
@@ -223,13 +223,13 @@ Extraction makes judgment calls, it does not mirror your instructions line by li
- **Reviewing and correcting a personal shelf**: `get_all()` with the adjuster's `user_id`, then act on what is actually stored.
<CodeGroup>
```python Python
priya_shelf = client.get_all(filters={"user_id": ADJUSTER})
for r in priya_shelf["results"]:
sarah_shelf = client.get_all(filters={"user_id": ADJUSTER})
for r in sarah_shelf["results"]:
print(r["id"], "-", r["memory"])
```
```typescript TypeScript
const priyaShelf = await client.getAll({ filters: { userId: ADJUSTER } });
for (const r of priyaShelf.results) {
const sarahShelf = await client.getAll({ filters: { userId: ADJUSTER } });
for (const r of sarahShelf.results) {
console.log(r.id, "-", r.memory);
}
```