math-verify

Verifies mathematical proofs for correctness and identifies logical gaps and counterexamples.

3|1|Updated Feb 26, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/imvladikon/dot-claude --skill math-verify
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: math-verify
Source: https://github.com/imvladikon/dot-claude/tree/main/skills/math-verify
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/imvladikon/dot-claude --skill math-verify

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Automates rigorous verification of mathematical proofs by identifying gaps, testing edge cases, and locating counterexamples.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Systematic structural analysis of proofs to ensure premises lead to conclusions.
  • Step-by-step verification with optional symbolic checks and counterexample exploration across common proof techniques (direct, induction, contradiction, contrapositive).
  • Use Case: a researcher can paste a proof sketch to uncover hidden assumptions or leaps in logic.

Quick Start

Validate a given proof by asking to verify each step and surface any logical gaps.

Frequently Asked Questions about math-verify

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I verify a mathematical proof for logical gaps and hidden assumptions?

Yes, proof verification supports common techniques including direct, induction, contradiction, and contrapositive. It systematically analyzes each step, applying symbolic computation where available to validate hypotheses and uncover leaps in logic.

Can I use symbolic computation to find counterexamples in a proof sketch?

Proof verification is applicable to classroom, research, and formal-method workflows. It suits anyone needing rigorous checking, counterexample searching, and hypothesis validation across various mathematical contexts.

What is the best way to check if premises lead to conclusions in formal methods?

Limitations include relying on the completeness of the provided proof sketch; if steps are too vague, verifying logical gaps becomes difficult. It is not a substitute for generating original proofs but focuses on validating existing ones.

How do I validate each step of a mathematical proof to surface logical errors?

You validate each step by requesting step-by-step verification, which applies phased analysis and counterexample testing to surface logical errors. This ensures explicit hypothesis verification using symbolic computation when available.