proof-writer

Formalize ML/AI theorem proofs into structured PROOF_PACKAGE.md files.

Updated Jun 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/xqinag/ARIS-new --skill proof-writer-xqinag
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: proof-writer
Source: https://github.com/xqinag/ARIS-new/tree/main/skills/proof-writer
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/xqinag/ARIS-new --skill proof-writer-xqinag

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Writes mathematically honest proofs for ML/AI theory. When asked to prove a theorem, lemma, proposition, or corollary, fills in missing proof steps and formalizes a proof sketch.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Produces complete, structured Proof Packages with explicit claims, assumptions, and notation.
  • Normalizes the exact statement, identifies gaps, and suggests corrections or blockage reports.
  • Generates a dependency map and step-by-step justification to support reproducible research workflows.

Quick Start

Summarize the exact theorem and assumptions, then request a full Proof Package with a dependency map and steps.

Frequently Asked Questions about proof-writer

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I formalize a proof sketch for an ML theory theorem?

To formalize a proof sketch for ML theory, provide the explicit theorem statement, assumptions, and notation. The tool fills missing steps and generates a structured PROOF_PACKAGE.md with a dependency map and stepwise justifications.

What is the best way to write rigorous proofs for machine learning lemmas?

Writing rigorous proofs for ML lemmas requires normalizing the exact claim, identifying logical gaps, and generating step-by-step justifications. This process outputs a complete formal argument structured for reproducible research workflows.

Can I use this to fill gaps in a proposition proof for AI theory?

Yes, you can fill gaps in proposition proofs by supplying your existing sketch. It analyzes the provided assumptions, suggests corrections or blockage reports, and outputs a fully justified formal argument.

Do I need to provide exact assumptions and notation to formalize a corollary proof?

Yes, providing exact assumptions and notation is required. Formalizing a corollary proof depends on explicit statements of the claim and user-provided sketches to successfully generate a complete, mathematically honest proof package.

What limitations exist when converting informal proof ideas into complete formal arguments?

Limitations arise when the initial theorem statement lacks explicit claims or assumptions. If the sketch has unresolvable logical gaps, the process outputs a blockage report detailing the missing dependencies rather than forcing a complete formal argument.