proof-writer

Generate rigorous mathematical proof packages for ML/AI claims.

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

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It helps you turn a theorem, lemma, proposition, or proof sketch in ML/AI theory into a mathematically honest proof package, or clearly explain why the claim cannot be justified from the stated assumptions.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Rigorous proof drafting: Produces a complete proof, or a corrected claim plus a proof, rather than polishing gaps into a “fake” argument.
  • Feasibility triage: Classifies results as provable as stated, provable only after weakening/extra assumptions, or not currently justified.
  • Proof auditability: Builds an explicit dependency map and justifies every nontrivial implication step-by-step.

Quick Start

Use the proof-writer skill to draft a rigorous proof for your ML/AI theorem, including assumptions and a correctness status, and write the result into PROOF_PACKAGE.md by default.

Frequently Asked Questions about proof-writer

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I write a rigorous mathematical proof for an ML theory theorem without guessing the missing steps?

To write a rigorous proof without guessing, you need a structured proof package that explicitly maps dependencies and justifies every nontrivial implication. This approach drafts the full proof or identifies missing assumptions required to satisfy proof-honesty requirements.

What happens when a theorem cannot be proven from its stated assumptions?

When a theorem cannot be proven from its assumptions, a feasibility triage process reports justified blockers. It classifies the result as not currently justified, or suggests weakening the claim and adding extra assumptions to make it provable.

How do I formalize a proof sketch and fill in missing steps for a lemma or proposition?

To formalize a proof sketch, you apply step-by-step justification to fill missing steps for lemmas, propositions, and corollaries. This process respects stated assumptions and outputs a structured proof document with quantified, fully justified reasoning.

Can I audit an existing mathematical proof to check if it respects all stated assumptions?

Yes, proof auditing builds an explicit dependency map to check if the reasoning respects all stated assumptions. It verifies every nontrivial implication step-by-step to ensure the argument contains no gaps or fake justifications.

What is the best way to triage the provability of an AI theory claim before drafting the full argument?

The best way to triage provability is to classify results as provable as stated, provable only after weakening, or not currently justified. This prevents wasting effort on claims that lack sufficient assumptions to support a complete proof.