Write the problem hypothesis
For [user], the agent loses or retrieves [information] incorrectly across [scope], causing [wrong action or repeated work].
You can name one user, one situation and one measurable consequence without proposing a feature.Hard-coded `new InMemoryRunner(...)` prevents injection and custom runner implementations
Evidence observed in google/adk-java, a Productivity project.
6 comments5 positive reactions279 days openProject Radar 89
needs review
Start free validation sprint4 guided steps · private notes · cloud sync
SOURCE EVIDENCE
Read original GitHub Issue ↗Start with what users actually said
Reporter context: In the current implementation of , the runner instance is created directly via constructor: This introduces a structural limitation: the code forces a specific runner implementation and does not allow the caller to provide their own or override behaviour. Why this is problematic No ability to inject alternative Runner…Excerpted from the public Issue. Read the complete thread before interpreting it.
Interview five affected users
- Which information must persist?
- For how long and within what scope?
- Show the last wrong or missing recall.
- What data must never cross boundaries?
- How do you correct memory today?
Run the smallest experiment
Test one constrained memory scope with a small real dataset and a written expected-recall benchmark.
The system retrieves the right evidence across repeated sessions without leaking or inventing context.Make a build decision
- Build: repeated pain and active commitment
- Narrow: pain is real but the audience or job differs
- Stop: weak frequency or no behavioral proof
Why this brief exists
Information has value only when it changes action. This page turns one public signal into a bounded validation exercise. It is a research aid, not proof of demand, investment advice or a product recommendation.