#22138: Create ContextMemory documentation

Added documentation for ContextMemory, including installation instructions, usage commands, and integration details. ## Summary Describe the problem and fix in 2–5 bullets: - Problem: - Why it matters: - What changed: - What did NOT change (scope boundary): ## Change Type (select all) - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Feature - [ ] Refactor - [x] Docs - [ ] Security hardening - [ ] Chore/infra ## Scope (select all touched areas) - [ ] Gateway / orchestration - [ ] Skills / tool execution - [ ] Auth / tokens - [x] Memory / storage - [ ] Integrations - [ ] API / contracts - [ ] UI / DX - [ ] CI/CD / infra ## Linked Issue/PR - Closes # - Related # ## User-visible / Behavior Changes List user-visible changes (including defaults/config). If none, write `None`. ## Security Impact (required) - New permissions/capabilities? (`Yes/No`) - Secrets/tokens handling changed? (`Yes/No`) - New/changed network calls? (`Yes/No`) - Command/tool execution surface changed? (`Yes/No`) - Data access scope changed? (`Yes/No`) - If any `Yes`, explain risk + mitigation: ## Repro + Verification ### Environment - OS: - Runtime/container: - Model/provider: - Integration/channel (if any): - Relevant config (redacted): ### Steps 1. 2. 3. ### Expected - ### Actual - ## Evidence Attach at least one: - [ ] Failing test/log before + passing after - [ ] Trace/log snippets - [ ] Screenshot/recording - [ ] Perf numbers (if relevant) ## Human Verification (required) What you personally verified (not just CI), and how: - Verified scenarios: - Edge cases checked: - What you did **not** verify: ## Compatibility / Migration - Backward compatible? (`Yes/No`) - Config/env changes? (`Yes/No`) - Migration needed? (`Yes/No`) - If yes, exact upgrade steps: ## Failure Recovery (if this breaks) - How to disable/revert this change quickly: - Files/config to restore: - Known bad symptoms reviewers should watch for: ## Risks and Mitigations List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write `None`. - Risk: - Mitigation: <!-- greptile_comment --> <h3>Greptile Summary</h3> This PR adds documentation for `ContextMemory`, which appears to be an external npm package (`@akashkobal/contextmemory`) rather than OpenClaw functionality. **Critical Issues:** - Documentation describes a third-party package not integrated into OpenClaw - The package is not in OpenClaw's dependencies and has no code integration - `docs.json` was not updated, so this documentation won't appear in the navigation - OpenClaw already has its own auto memory system, making this potentially confusing - The documentation references the author's personal GitHub and npm package **Recommendation:** If this is meant to document a third-party tool or integration, it should be clearly labeled as such and moved to `docs/tools/` or `docs/integrations/`. Otherwise, this documentation appears unrelated to the OpenClaw project and should not be merged. <h3>Confidence Score: 0/5</h3> - This PR should not be merged as it appears to document an external package unrelated to OpenClaw - Score reflects fundamental misalignment with repository purpose - the documentation describes a third-party npm package with no integration into OpenClaw, no code changes, and no navigation updates. This would confuse users about what's actually part of OpenClaw. - docs/contextmemory/contextmemory.md requires complete re-evaluation of whether it belongs in this repository _{Last reviewed commit: d05c86d} <!-- greptile_other_comments_section --> _{(3/5) Reply to the agent's comments like "Can you suggest a fix for this @greptileai?" or ask follow-up questions!} <!-- /greptile_comment -->