- name
- create-formal-verification-skill
- description
- Generate a project-local skill that formally verifies the code where a bug costs the most and tests reach the least, in any language, with whichever verification tool fits. Use for /create-formal-verification-skill, \"model-check this race\", \"prove this invariant\", or when concurrency, retries, state machines, parsers, or unsafe code need more than tests.
- disable-model-invocation
- true
Create a formal verification skill
A test checks the cases that someone thought to write. Formal verification checks every case in a stated scope: every order of steps in a model, every input up to a bound, or every input. This skill finds the part of the repo where that matters most, verifies one property of it, and leaves a project-local skill that lets the next agent check a change against that property. Write that skill for an agent who reads it cold, mid-change, and has never seen your work. The user must be able to trust the result and act on it without learning the verification language.
Choose the target from the code
Answer from the codebase, and ask the user only what you cannot observe. If the user named an area or a bug, start there.
A good target is a promise the code makes, where a break harms users and tests rarely reach the case that breaks it. Choose the strongest such target in the repo, not the one that is easiest to verify.
Let the question choose the tool
Pick the tool that answers the question at the lowest cost: a model checker, a proof assistant, an SMT-backed verifier, or another tool. Whether events can happen in a bad order usually suits a model checker over a small model of the design, and TLA+ is the default for that in any language. Whether the code itself behaves for every input, as with memory safety, overflow, or a data-structure invariant, usually suits a verifier that runs on the code. If no verifier runs on this language, say so, and test the real code with generated inputs, not a hand model of the function. A property that must hold at every size, where a bound is not enough, can need a proof. Prefer a tool that the repo's developers can install and run, and tell the user why you chose it.
What makes it good
- True to the code. Every part of the model or proof points to code that a reviewer can open. What the verification treats as one indivisible step is one indivisible step in the code. Names come from this repo.
- Able to fail. A check that you have never seen fail proves nothing. Show each property failing on a broken variant of the code it guards, such as a removed check or a reordered step.
- Findings stay findings. When the current code breaks the property, report it with the counterexample in the code's terms. Do not weaken the property or the model until it passes, and do not change product code unless the user asks.
- Honest about scope. Say what is verified, under which bounds and assumptions, and what is left out. A pass covers the model or the bound, not the whole system.