proof-failure-explainer
From the author
Analyze and explain why Isabelle or Coq proofs fail, identifying the root cause such as type mismatches, missing assumptions, incorrect goals, unification failures, or inapplicable tactics. Use when the user encounters proof failures, error messages in formal verification, stuck proof states, or asks why their Isabelle/Coq proof doesn't work.
Install
npx skills add ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE --skill proof-failure-explainer -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/proof-failure-explainer/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Download .zip
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 83
Security100
Provenance69
Maintenance85
Licence100
Adoption40
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- counterexample-debuggerArabelaTso/Skills-4-SEDebug proof failures using counterexamples from Nitpick (Isabelle) or QuickChick (Coq) to identify specification errors, missing preconditions, and proof strategy issues. Use when: (1) A proof attempt fails and you need to understand why, (2) Counterexamples are generated by Nitpick or QuickChick, (3) Specifications may be incorrect or incomplete, (4) Theorems need validation before proving, (5) Missing preconditions or lemmas need identification, or (6) Proof failures need explanation and correction suggestions. Supports both Isabelle/HOL and Coq equally.Engineering★ 258
- proof-refactoring-assistantArabelaTso/Skills-4-SERestructure and improve Isabelle or Coq proofs to enhance readability, modularity, and maintainability without changing semantics. Use when proofs are long and monolithic, have repeated patterns, use unclear naming, lack documentation, or when the user asks to refactor, clean up, improve, or reorganize their formal proofs.Engineering★ 258
- tactic-suggestion-assistantArabelaTso/Skills-4-SEAnalyze proof states in Isabelle or Coq and suggest applicable tactics to make progress. Use when users need help with: (1) Choosing the next tactic in an interactive proof, (2) Understanding what tactics apply to their current goal, (3) Getting unstuck in a proof, (4) Learning which tactics work for specific goal structures (conjunctions, implications, induction, etc.). Provides 3-5 ranked tactic suggestions with explanations for intermediate-level proofs in both Isabelle/Isar and Coq.Planning★ 258
- proof-trace-summarizerArabelaTso/Skills-4-SESummarize long Isabelle or Coq proof scripts into high-level logical steps and reasoning flow. Use when users need to: (1) Understand the structure of a complex proof, (2) Document proof strategies for others, (3) Extract the key reasoning steps from verbose proof scripts, (4) Create readable proof outlines from detailed tactical proofs. Produces hierarchical outlines with moderate detail showing proof structure, main cases, key lemmas, and reasoning flow for both Isabelle/Isar and Coq proofs.Productivity★ 258
- lemma-discovery-assistantArabelaTso/Skills-4-SEAnalyze failed or stuck proofs and propose auxiliary lemmas to help complete the proof in Isabelle/HOL or Coq. Use when encountering proof failures, stuck proof states, unprovable subgoals, or when needing to strengthen induction hypotheses. Identifies missing lemmas, suggests proof strategies, and generates helper lemmas with appropriate statements and proof sketches. Supports inductive proofs, case analysis, rewriting, and complex proof obligations.Other★ 258
- counterexample-explainerArabelaTso/Skills-4-SEExplain why counterexamples violate specifications by analyzing formal specifications (temporal logic, invariants, pre/postconditions, code contracts), informal requirements (user stories, acceptance criteria), test specifications (assertions, property-based tests), and providing step-by-step traces showing state changes, comparing expected vs actual behavior, identifying root causes, and assessing violation impact. Use when debugging test failures, understanding model checker output, explaining runtime assertion violations, analyzing static analysis warnings, or teaching specification concepts. Produces structured markdown explanations with traces, comparisons, state diagrams, and cause chains. Triggers when users ask why something failed, explain a violation, understand a counterexample, debug a specification, or analyze why a test fails.Testing★ 258
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in