fix(types): remove duplicate source field in RetentionScore (closes #277)

[rohitg00]

Verified bug

src/types.ts:835 and :842 both declared source?: "episodic" | "semantic" on RetentionScore. TypeScript silently accepts duplicate property declarations when types are identical — but the documented JSDoc on the first declaration (referencing #124 / pre-0.8.10 row back-compat) was effectively shadowed.

// before
export interface RetentionScore {
  memoryId: string;
  // ... see #124 back-compat note ...
  source?: "episodic" | "semantic";
  score: number;
  salience: number;
  temporalDecay: number;
  reinforcementBoost: number;
  lastAccessed: string;
  accessCount: number;
  source?: "episodic" | "semantic";  // ← dup
}

Verified safe to remove

grep -rn "\.source\s*=\|source:" src/ | grep -i retention returned zero writers setting source on RetentionScore. No path could plausibly write to both shadowed declarations. Single source of truth restored, JSDoc back-compat note preserved.

Test plan

• npm test — 877 / 877.
• npm run build — tsdown clean.

Closes #277. Thanks @cl0ckt0wer for the precise file:line trace.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated retention tracking data structure to support enhanced metrics including reinforcement scoring, access timing, and usage frequency monitoring.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
agentmemory	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 13, 2026 11:00am

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: cfaa7991-866e-44b1-806f-5e6537293e46

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 25dddc4 and 9419fcf.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/types.ts

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• src/types.ts

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The RetentionScore interface in src/types.ts is extended with three new fields: reinforcementBoost (number), lastAccessed (string), and accessCount (number) to track additional retention-related metrics alongside existing properties.

Changes

RetentionScore Type Extension

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Add retention metrics to RetentionScore src/types.ts	RetentionScore interface extended with reinforcementBoost, lastAccessed, and accessCount fields to capture reinforcement boost, last access timestamp, and cumulative access count.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• rohitg00/agentmemory#132: Both PRs modify the RetentionScore type in src/types.ts, extending it with different retention-related properties and their usage in eviction logic.

Poem

🐰 Three metrics hop into the Score today,
Boost and access time come to play,
Retention strengthens with each new field,
Memory's garden richly tilled! 📊✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	⚠️ Warning	The PR adds new fields (reinforcementBoost, lastAccessed, accessCount) to RetentionScore but the issue #277 only requires removing the duplicate source field; the new fields appear unrelated to the stated objective.	Verify whether the new fields (reinforcementBoost, lastAccessed, accessCount) were intentionally added to address #277 requirements, or remove them if they belong in a separate PR.
Out of Scope Changes check	⚠️ Warning	The addition of three new fields (reinforcementBoost, lastAccessed, accessCount) to RetentionScore appears out of scope, as issue #277 specifically requests only the removal of the duplicate source field.	Clarify whether the three new fields are intentional for this PR or should be moved to a separate feature branch and PR.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: removing a duplicate source field in RetentionScore, and correctly references the closed issue #277.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/277-duplicate-source-retentionscore

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}