Graphify.md · community-built · not affiliated with NVIDIA

NemoClaw as a traversable
knowledge graph

Graphify.md is a community-built project, not affiliated with NVIDIA, that turns NemoClaw into a traversable knowledge graph for source-grounded lookup and dependency traversal. Built for platform engineers, agent developers, and docs teams who need deterministic answers about runtimes, policy, security, and deployment — with every result traceable to declared relationships rather than model inference.

Not a general-purpose semantic search layer — if it's not a declared edge, the graph doesn't return it.
$pip install ckg-nvidia-nemoclaw

"The graph doesn't guess — it traverses. Every answer traces to a declared edge."

PyPI v0.3.0 55 nodes · 74 edges F1 0.471 · 4× RAG KRB v0.6.2 MIT Graphify.md

The graph

55 nodes · 74 edges · hover to explore · colored by layer

Root Agent Security Inference Policy Feature

What developers are actually hitting

Signal from 123 GitHub issues, HN threads 47427027 + 47435066, and hands-on walkthroughs.

01 — Context

Context bloat in tool loops

Agents forget tool schemas after loop iterations. The model re-infers NemoClaw's architecture on every query instead of reading declared structure.

02 — Burn

"Which agent is burning my budget?"

OpenShell makes token spend visible per agent for the first time. The next question is how to reduce it. CKG is that answer.

03 — Gap

The Policy Source Gap

NVIDIA's own OpenShell graph names this: the missing layer between the runtime policy engine and the structured knowledge agents need. We filled it.

What it is

The full NemoClaw stack as a typed dependency graph. Pre-structured, traversable, deterministic. Served over MCP. No inference at query time.

Deployment chain traversal

get_prerequisites("ManagedMCPServer")

→ ManagedMCPServer
  ├─ [ENABLES]  NemoClaw
  ├─ [REQUIRES] NetworkPolicy  ← root
  └─ [REQUIRES] L7Proxy
       ├─ [IMPLEMENTS] OpenShell
       └─ [REQUIRES] SharedGateway
            └─ [IMPLEMENTS] InferenceProvider

269 tokens · declared edges only
RAG: ~2,982 tokens · probabilistic

Shared mechanism discovery

query_ckg("ProgressiveToolDisclosure")

← [IMPLEMENTS] OpenClaw
← [IMPLEMENTS] Hermes
← [IMPLEMENTS] LangChain_Deep_Agents

All three runtimes share this mechanism.
RAG returns three separate docs.
The graph knows — it's a declared edge.

Declared relationships, not confidence scores

Every edge in the graph was extracted from a source document and given a type. There are no probabilistic weights, no cosine similarity scores, no confidence intervals. An edge either exists — declared, typed, sourced — or it doesn't. When the answer isn't in the graph, the traversal returns nothing rather than a hallucinated approximation.

Edge types

REQUIRES

Hard prerequisite. A cannot function without B. Used for build-time and runtime dependencies — e.g., OpenShell REQUIRES L7Proxy.

ENABLES

Capability unlock. A makes B possible but B can exist without A in degraded form — e.g., ManagedMCPServer ENABLES NetworkPolicy.

IMPLEMENTS

Concrete instantiation of an abstract concept — e.g., OpenClaw IMPLEMENTS ProgressiveToolDisclosure. Useful for finding all runtimes sharing a mechanism.

RELATES_TO

Conceptual proximity without a dependency direction. Used for cross-layer concepts — e.g., SecurityHardening RELATES_TO Sandbox.

Why no confidence levels?

Confidence scores exist to compensate for retrieval uncertainty. RAG returns chunks that might be relevant, scored by vector distance. A 0.87 cosine score doesn't tell you if the relationship is real — it tells you the embedding is similar. CKG has no retrieval step, so there's nothing to score.

The edge type is the confidence signal. REQUIRES means the relationship is load-bearing and sourced. RELATES_TO means it's real but weaker. Absent means the graph makes no claim — which is different from "low confidence." A missing edge is not a soft no; it's silence from a source-grounded system.

✗ RAG answer

"CorporateCA is probably used for identity management... (similarity: 0.81)"

The score is on the chunk retrieval, not the factual claim. The claim itself is unverified.

✓ CKG answer

"CorporateCA is anchored at image build for TLS interception proxy traversal."

No score. Declared edge. Traces to security hardening source doc. Ask for the edge and it returns it verbatim.

A/B test — NemoClaw domain, local models, no GPU

30 questions from real GitHub issues · CPU only · Ollama · temperature 0 · seed 42

+103%
Prereq-chain F1
nemotron + CKG
+73%
Multi-hop F1
nemotron + CKG
+71%
Lookup F1
nemotron + CKG
30%
of graph loaded
context ceiling hit
phi4-mini and nemotron-mini truncate at ~2,050 tokens. The CKG is 6,837 tokens — only 30% is loading. Prereq-chain F1 still doubles on that fraction. Full-context models widen the gap further.
L01 — lookup · phi4-mini

What are the three agent runtimes supported by NemoClaw and how is each activated?

✗ Bare model
"NemoClaw supports TensorFlow, PyTorch, and ONNX Runtime as its agent runtimes. To activate TensorFlow, you can use..."
Invented from general ML knowledge. Model doesn't know NemoClaw exists as an agent platform.
✓ With CKG
"OpenClaw (default), Hermes (NEMOCLAW_AGENT=hermes), LangChain Deep Agents (NEMOCLAW_AGENT=dcode)"
Declared edges, correct activation paths.
P08 — prereq-chain · nemotron-mini · best Δ +0.261

How does CorporateCA integrate into NemoClaw's security chain?

✗ Bare model
"CorporateCA, a cloud-native identity and access management (IAM) solution from NVIDIA, can be integrated with NemoClaw to enhance its security posture..."
Hallucinated. CorporateCA is not an NVIDIA IAM product.
✓ With CKG
"CorporateCA is anchored at the image build stage for TLS interception proxy traversal in NemoClaw."
Exact mechanism, correct integration point.
L08 — lookup · nemotron-mini · Δ +0.194

What enterprise manufacturing deployment uses NemoClaw via the FOX Blueprint?

✗ Bare model
"...FOX (Flexible Open-Source Object Tracking) Blueprint. Here are some examples: Quality Control inspection..."
Invented acronym expansion. No mention of Foxconn or MoMClaw.
✓ With CKG
"Foxconn's MoMClaw is a production deployment of the FOX Blueprint on NemoClaw."
Correct. Declared edge: MoMClaw → FOX_Blueprint.

Install

Add to claude.ai (no install required)

URLhttps://ckg-nvidia-nemoclaw.onrender.com/mcp

Settings → Connectors → Add connector → paste URL above.

Local — Claude Desktop / Claude Code

$uvx ckg-nvidia-nemoclaw
// claude_desktop_config.json
{ "mcpServers": {
  "nemoclaw": {
    "command": "uvx",
    "args": ["ckg-nvidia-nemoclaw"]
  }
}}

Tools

ToolDescription
ask_nemoclaw(question)Natural language query — auto-detects concept, traverses the relevant subgraph
query_ckg(concept, depth)Typed subgraph around a specific concept (1–5 hops)
get_prerequisites(concept)Full upstream prerequisite chain — every dependency in order
search_concepts(query)Fuzzy search across all 55 concepts
list_domains()Available domains and node/edge counts

What's in the graph

55 nodes · 74 edges · edge types: REQUIRES · ENABLES · IMPLEMENTS · RELATES_TO

Agent runtimes

OpenClaw · Hermes · LangChain Deep Agents

Platform

OpenShell · NVIDIA Agent Toolkit · OpenShell TUI · CLI

Inference

SharedGateway · vLLM · Ollama · NIM Local · ModelRouter

Policy

NetworkPolicy · PolicyTier (Restricted/Balanced/Open) · PolicyPreset

Security

L7Proxy · Landlock LSM · CONNECT Proxy · CorporateCA · SecurityHardening

Agent features

Progressive Tool Disclosure · Context Compaction · Heartbeat · Snapshots · Shields

Deployment

DGX Spark · DGX Station · macOS Apple Silicon · WSL2 · Brev

Ecosystem

FOX Blueprint · MoMClaw (Foxconn) · Nemotron 3 Ultra · Agent Harness

Community pulse

Signal from 123 open GitHub issues · HN threads 47427027 + 47435066 · hands-on walkthroughs.

GitHub — top pain threads

#7084 open
Hermes shows ready but tool calls silently fail ("phantom-ready")
Async state between OpenShell and agent runtime not synchronized
#360 open · 47 thumbs
"Can I run local with no API key?"
inference.local path requires NVIDIA API key even in offline mode; gap between docs and behavior
#1832 open
Multi-sandbox SharedGateway conflicts
Two sandbox containers on the same host claim the same InferenceProvider slot; no isolation docs
#2991 open
Context window fills after ~12 tool calls in OpenClaw
No auto-compaction; session degrades silently
#5133 open
PolicyPreset Telegram/Discord integration underdocumented
No end-to-end example for messaging channel policy binding

HN + community themes

"Which agent is burning my budget?"

OpenShell surfaced per-agent token spend for the first time. Developers immediately ask how to reduce it — not just see it. CKG is the answer to that follow-up.

The local inference expectation gap

Dominant skepticism: "even local mode demands an API key." HN thread 47427027 has 83 upvotes on this complaint. CKG runs on pure Python BFS — no model, no API, no cloud.

ProgressiveToolDisclosure confusion

Three runtimes (OpenClaw/Hermes/LangChain) share it, docs cover each separately. Developers don't realize it's the same mechanism. The graph makes the shared edge visible.

Sources

Every node and edge traces to one of these. No probabilistic inference — declared relationships only.

TypeSourceCoverage
Officialdocs.nvidia.com/nemoclaw/latest/Core platform — agent runtimes, OpenShell, security, inference routing, policy
OfficialFOX Blueprint docsMoMClaw (Foxconn) manufacturing deployment, enterprise patterns
OfficialNemotron 3 Ultra ecosystemDGX Spark/Station, ModelRouter, NIM Local integration
OfficialSecurity hardening guideLandlockLSM, L7Proxy, CorporateCA, CONNECT Proxy, Sandbox chain
OfficialManaged MCP Server docsManagedMCPServer, NetworkPolicy, PolicyTier, PolicyPreset, messaging bindings
OfficialAgent features referenceProgressiveToolDisclosure, Context Compaction, Heartbeat, Snapshots, Shields
Communitygithub.com/Yarmoluk/ckg-nvidia-nemoclaw/issues123 issues — phantom-ready, local API key, SharedGateway conflicts
CommunityHN 47427027 · HN 47435066Local inference gap (83↑) · token burn visibility · multi-sandbox use cases
Datasethuggingface.co/datasets/danyarm/ckg-benchmarkKRB v0.6.2 — 7,928 queries, 30 NemoClaw-domain questions
Benchmarkgithub.com/Yarmoluk/ckg-benchmark/paper/main.pdfFull methodology, F1 0.471, RAG/GraphRAG baselines, reproduction
A/B reportckg-ab-test/results/REPORT_nemoclaw.md30-question NemoClaw run · phi4-mini + nemotron-mini · CPU · full raw results

Benchmark (v0.6.2 locked)

0.471
CKG Macro F1
269 tokens · $7.81/1k
0.123
RAG baseline
2,982 tokens · $76.23/1k
0.120
GraphRAG baseline
~3,000 tokens · ~$76/1k

7,928 queries · 5-hop F1: 0.772 (CKG) vs 0.170 (RAG) · dataset public on HuggingFace · run it yourself

Try it now

Add the NemoClaw graph to your agent in 30 seconds

No API key. No GPU. No inference at query time. Add the URL connector in claude.ai or run locally with one command.

97 domains available · ckg-mcp serves the full Graphify.md ecosystem · Free tier included