proof-checker

Verify and repair LaTeX mathematical proofs with cross-model review and audit reports.

Updated Apr 21, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Shallow-W/llm-wiki --skill proof-checker-shallow-w
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: proof-checker
Source: https://github.com/Shallow-W/llm-wiki/tree/main/.claude/skills/proof-checker
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Shallow-W/llm-wiki --skill proof-checker-shallow-w

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill verifies mathematical proofs rigorously, identifies gaps in logic and assumptions, and produces corrected, fully derived replacements when issues are found.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Cross-model proof review: Runs an adversarial review pass to locate unproven steps, hidden assumptions, and invalid interchanges.
  • Gap fixing with re-review: Iteratively fixes each detected gap using full derivations, then re-checks until convergence (bounded rounds).
  • Audit reporting: Produces an audit log and a formal proof-before/after report with proof-obligation accounting and counterexample red-teaming.

Quick Start

Use the proof-checker skill to verify and fix the LaTeX proof in your paper by sending the path to the .tex file and, if needed, adding --deep-fix for repair-grade issue plans.

Frequently Asked Questions about proof-checker

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I verify mathematical proofs in LaTeX for theorem checking and gap fixing?

To verify mathematical proofs in LaTeX, submit the .tex file path to trigger a rigorous cross-model review that detects unproven steps and hidden assumptions. The tool outputs a formal audit report with complete proof obligation accounting and gap fixing derivations.

How does cross-model proof review work for detecting unproven steps in theory papers?

Cross-model proof review runs adversarial passes to locate hidden assumptions and invalid interchanges in your derivations. It tracks proof obligations and applies counterexample red-teaming to ensure theorem statements match their stated hypotheses with correct quantifiers and asymptotic uniformity.

What is the best way to fix proof gaps and generate an audit report from a .tex file?

The best way to fix proof gaps is to pass your LaTeX file path with the --deep-fix flag. This triggers iterative gap fixing with full derivations, followed by bounded re-review rounds until convergence, ultimately producing a formal proof audit report and audit log.

Does proof verification support checking asymptotic uniformity and correct quantifiers in lemma statements?

Yes, proof verification explicitly supports checking asymptotic uniformity and correct quantifiers in lemma statements. The review process ensures that theorem and lemma statements match their stated hypotheses by validating inequalities, quantifiers, and uniformity conditions.

Are there limitations when performing counterexample red-teaming on complex mathematical proofs?

Counterexample red-teaming operates within bounded rounds for gap fixing and re-review convergence. While it rigorously tests theorem statements against hypotheses, highly complex or non-standard mathematical proofs may require manual intervention if the automated derivation cannot fully resolve invalid interchanges.