mycelic
MYCELIC / DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENCE

From compute
to collective
intelligence.

Security, memory, and discovery. Powered by your company’s laptops and desktops.

Open-source memory · NeuralGraph
Private by design. Distributed by default.
Explore the system

Three layers.
One connected system.

Agent swarm defense.

Connect scattered warning signs to investigate coordinated agent attacks.

A map for your agents.

Give agents persistent memory of the enterprise: its entities, relationships, and changes. NeuralGraph turns those updates into signals.

See the bigger picture.

Connect signals across your organization to reveal what no single agent can see.

01 / SYSTEM

One connected system.

Persistent memory. Shared signals. Intelligence across your own devices.


A swarm attacks.
The defense connects.

The reported Hugging Face attack alongside a proposed Mycelic response.

Without Mycelic

Reported incident / July 2026

With Mycelic

Proposed response / In development

  1. Entry
  2. Evidence
  3. Response
  4. Outcome
One click. The full sequence.

Based on Hugging Face and OpenAI reports. Mycelic’s response is a proposed scenario requiring connected telemetry, authenticated findings, and authorized enforcement.

Explore latency and architecture

Local decisions can avoid a central round trip. Cross-device findings still require evidence exchange and verification.

Illustrative observation-to-enforcement budgets, separate from the incident replay. Hardware, models, bandwidth, load, policy, and human review affect real latency.

Remote-only decision
Central round trip + ingest queue + central analysis + enforcement
Local policy decision
Local analysis + queue + enforcement; uses evidence and policy already available locally
Cross-device verified decision
Local analysis + queue + peer verification and exchange + enforcement; reachable peers assumed
ConstraintRemote-only analysisMycelic design
LatencyNew decisions wait for transport, ingestion, analysis, and a return instruction.Eligible local decisions avoid that round trip. Collective findings still pay for evidence exchange and verification.
DisconnectionA disconnected endpoint cannot receive a new remote decision.Local checks can continue within installed policy. Network-wide discovery cannot see unreachable peers.
Private evidenceCentral analysis cannot directly inspect raw evidence it is forbidden to receive.Agents inspect evidence locally and exchange scoped findings with provenance. Shared findings still need access control.
Weak signals over timeCan correlate signals that were collected and retained. Missing source context cannot be reconstructed from nothing.Local temporal memory preserves context for follow-up questions. Discovery seeks supporting and contradictory evidence across sources.
Load and failureA shared decision service can queue or fail; replication and sharding can mitigate both.Local decisions distribute work and limit reliance on one service. Peer traffic, device limits, compromised nodes, and verification add costs.
ContainmentCan enforce through connected endpoint, identity, and network controls.Proposed local enforcement uses those same authorized controls. An LLM alert alone cannot isolate a workload or revoke a token.

Hybrid systems with local enforcement can share these advantages. References: NIST fog computing and NIST policy enforcement.

02 / RESEARCH

Evidence first.

Memory results and ongoing discovery research.

MEMORY

88% on LoCoMo

Internal evaluation. Protocol and reproducibility materials are not yet published; independent validation is pending.

INTERNAL RESULT
DISCOVERY

From signals to insight.

Connecting independent evidence through recursive questioning and source verification.

IN DEVELOPMENT

Request research details ↗

03 / CONTACT

What's hiding
in plain sight?

Tell us what you’re building.

To anovruz@utexas.edu. Choose where to open your draft, then send it there.