KLYPIX

TOOL COMPARISON · By Dahshan Labs · Reviewed

Shared project memory tools for Claude Code, Codex and Cursor

One codebase, several coding tools. Where should the decisions live?

For a small team using Claude Code, Codex and Cursor, start by deciding how teammates will share the record: a file in Git, a local service, or a hosted service. Then test whether a fresh session retrieves an actual decision and its latest correction. A configured MCP connection alone does not establish that handoff.

Five ways to share project memory

These tools document paths for Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Their storage, setup and automation differ. “MCP support” means the host can call tools; it does not mean each host captures context automatically.

Documented capabilities and practical tradeoffs, reviewed 24 September 2026
Tool and fitIntegration and setupStorage and team portabilityWhat to check
Klypix
Project decisions, explicit corrections, evidence and human inspection.
npx klypix-mcp install in each project on each machine. Claude Code has MCP and lifecycle hooks; Codex has MCP with optional native hooks; Cursor uses MCP and project rules.A brain.klypix project file. Share through Git; install the merge driver in each clone. The Apache-2.0 engine works without the optional Windows workspace.Capture only covers recorded knowledge. Git sharing is not live sync. Default session presence is machine-local and OS-user-local; file warnings are advisory.
Knowit
Typed project knowledge reviewed as text in Git.
npx knowit install; Node 20+. MCP setup for Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Task-context retrieval and session-learning capture tools.Project knowledge in .knowit/knowledge.jsonl; Git can carry that text between teammates. Optional global or custom SQLite stores.Check which store your team uses. Semantic embeddings require an optional OpenAI key; text and tag search work without it.
Klio
Memory served through a shared service.
npx @klio-tech/klio init. The README documents adapters for Claude Code, Codex and Cursor, with Claude Code hooks and MCP tools.Local deployment uses Docker, PostgreSQL/pgvector and Redis. A cloud mode is also documented; check its current setup separately.For local mode, budget for the service stack and backups. Cloud setup offers an optional model API proxy; review its routing and capture behavior before enabling it.
agent-parity
Consistent memory, instructions and skills across coding tools.
Repository installer with platform-specific setup. Documents Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Antigravity CLI integrations.Shared project files in Git; includes a merge driver for memory changes. Managed project settings align the supported agents.Its scope includes the agent environment as well as memory. Review the managed files and host prerequisites; Cursor requires MCP approval.
shared-agent-memory
A shared knowledge graph with optional edit coordination.
Install from GitHub with npx github:dan-calin/shared-agent-memory install, then initialize the project for the selected agents.Wraps the reference MCP memory server. Defaults to a user-level JSON store; project initialization creates .shared-memory/ and host instructions.Choose project-local storage deliberately. File claims are advisory by default; its optional Claude pre-edit hook can warn or block. Agents still need to call the memory tools.

Which should a small team choose?

Our recommendation: trial Klypix if your main need is to carry changing decisions, their evidence and explicit corrections between tools while keeping a project file that people can inspect. Keep stable conventions in AGENTS.md and code in Git.

If readable JSONL diffs are your priority, evaluate Knowit. If you want a memory service, evaluate Klio’s local and cloud modes. If you also want to standardize skills and instructions, evaluate agent-parity. For a small shared graph with optional file claims, evaluate shared-agent-memory.

A short rules file and decision records may already be enough for a project with few changing decisions. Add another tool only when your trial shows it retrieves useful context you would otherwise repeat or miss.

How Klypix fits this workflow

Klypix is a portable project workspace with a shared brain. The open-source klypix-mcp engine gives supported coding hosts access to captured decisions, questions and evidence. The optional Windows app lets people inspect and edit that understanding beside project files.

Start a task with brain_sync, retrieve a decision with brain_ask, and record a durable finding with brain_note. An explicit correction can supersede an earlier decision while preserving its history. brain_challenge can surface prior constraints, but an empty result does not prove a proposal is correct.

For teammates on different computers, commit and pull the brain through Git. Install the merge driver in each clone; without it, concurrent brain edits can produce a binary conflict. The default live presence lane only sees participating sessions for the same OS user on one machine.

Follow the team setup guide for Git sharing and the integration table for host-specific behavior. A local brain file does not make a connected cloud AI provider local: that provider can receive context supplied to its agent.

Run the same handoff trial

Use a disposable project and the same task for each tool you evaluate. Record the tool version, host version and actual returned answer.

  1. Capture a decision. In the first host, record: “For this trial, use SQLite because the demo must run offline.” Link a short decision record as evidence.
  2. Switch hosts. Start a fresh session in the same project using another coding tool. Ask which database was selected and why, without repeating the answer.
  3. Correct it explicitly. Record: “CORRECTION: use PostgreSQL because the demo now requires concurrent writers.” Ask again in another fresh session. Inspect both the current answer and the retained history.
  4. Move to a teammate’s clone. Follow the tool’s documented sharing procedure. Repeat the question there; a second local session does not prove cross-computer sharing.
  5. Review the costs. Check setup effort, reviewable changes, incorrect or missing retrievals, and what context reaches an external provider.

What we have verified for Klypix: a separate published conformance run passed its 15 checks using klypix-mcp 1.86.2. It covers isolated MCP clients and protocol fixtures. It is not the multi-host trial above, an independent review, or a comparative performance result.

Sources and review method

We checked each project’s official README for integration paths, installation, storage and stated limits. Features can change; use the linked documentation before installing. We do not infer an absent feature merely because a README does not mention it.

Reviewed 24 September 2026. This page includes no paid placements, review scores or invented customer results. The Klypix conformance output is linked with its command and scope so readers can reproduce that check.