Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

tlaplus-guided-code-repair

Automatically repair C/C++ code violations detected by TLA+ model checking. Takes a program, TLA+ specification, and TLC counterexample trace as input, then generates minimal code modifications to eliminate the violation. Use when: (1) TLC model checker reports an invariant violation, deadlock, or temporal property failure, (2) You have a counterexample trace and need to fix the corresponding code, (3) You need to understand how a TLA+ violation maps to program-level bugs, (4) You want to validate repairs by re-running TLC. Supports safety properties (invariants), liveness properties (temporal logic), and deadlock detection.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (5)

  • SKILL.md5.8 KB
  • references/repair_patterns.md6.1 KB
  • references/tlaplus_to_cpp_mapping.md6.6 KB
  • scripts/parse_tlc_trace.py4.0 KB
  • scripts/run_tlc.py3.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

TLA+ Guided Code Repair

Automatically repair C/C++ code based on TLA+ model checking violations. This skill analyzes TLC counterexamples, identifies root causes in the implementation, and generates semantically justified repairs.

Repair Workflow

Follow this sequential process when given a TLA+ violation:

1. Parse the Counterexample

Use scripts/parse_tlc_trace.py to extract structured information from TLC output:

python scripts/parse_tlc_trace.py trace.txt
# Or for JSON output:
python scripts/parse_tlc_trace.py --json trace.txt

This extracts:

  • Violation type (invariant, deadlock, temporal)
  • Violated property name
  • State trace with variable values at each step

2. Analyze the Violation

Read the reference guides to understand the violation:

  • references/repair_patterns.md - Common violations and repair strategies
  • references/tlaplus_to_cpp_mapping.md - How to map TLA+ to C/C++ code

Key analysis steps:

  1. Identify which invariant/property was violated
  2. Examine the state trace to find where the violation occurred
  3. Determine which TLA+ action led to the violation
  4. Map the TLA+ action to the corresponding C/C++ function

Example analysis:

Violation: Invariant BalanceNonNegative violated
Final state: balance = -50
Action: Withdraw (line 45 in spec)
Cause: withdraw() function allows amount > balance

3. Identify the Root Cause

Trace backwards from the violation to find the program-level bug:

Common root causes:

  • Missing precondition checks (guards)
  • Race conditions (missing synchronization)
  • Incorrect lock ordering (deadlocks)
  • Uninitialized variables
  • Missing notifications (liveness violations)

Mapping strategy:

  • TLA+ guards → C++ precondition checks
  • TLA+ atomic actions → C++ critical sections
  • TLA+ state variables → C++ member variables/globals
  • TLA+ action sequences → C++ function call chains

4. Generate the Repair

Create a minimal, semantically justified code modification:

Repair principles:

  • Minimal: Change only what's necessary to fix the violation
  • Justified: Every change should enforce a specific TLA+ property
  • Preserving: Don't break existing functionality

Common repair patterns:

Pattern A: Add precondition check

// Before
void withdraw(int amount) {
    balance -= amount;  // Can violate balance >= 0
}

// After - enforces invariant: balance >= 0
bool withdraw(int amount) {
    if (amount > balance) return false;  // Guard from TLA+ spec
    balance -= amount;
    return true;
}

Pattern B: Add synchronization

// Before - race condition
void increment() {
    counter++;
}

// After - enforces atomic action from TLA+ spec
void increment() {
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mtx);
    counter++;
}

Pattern C: Fix lock ordering

// Before - potential deadlock
void transfer(Account& from, Account& to, int amount) {
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock1(from.mtx);
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock2(to.mtx);
    // ...
}

// After - consistent ordering prevents deadlock
void transfer(Account& from, Account& to, int amount) {
    Account* first = &from < &to ? &from : &to;
    Account* second = &from < &to ? &to : &from;
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock1(first->mtx);
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock2(second->mtx);
    // ...
}

5. Validate the Repair

Re-run TLC model checker to verify the violation is fixed:

python scripts/run_tlc.py spec.tla --config spec.cfg

Run existing tests to ensure no regressions:

# Run your test suite
make test
# or
./run_tests.sh

Validation checklist:

  • TLC passes without violations
  • All existing tests still pass
  • The repair addresses the root cause (not just symptoms)
  • No new violations introduced

6. Explain the Repair

Provide a clear explanation of:

  1. What was violated: Which TLA+ property failed
  2. Why it failed: The root cause in the C++ code
  3. How the repair fixes it: What the code change enforces
  4. Validation results: TLC output and test results

Example explanation:

Violation: Invariant BalanceNonNegative (balance >= 0) was violated.

Root Cause: The withdraw() function at line 45 in account.cpp did not check
if the withdrawal amount exceeds the current balance, allowing negative balances.

Repair: Added precondition check `if (amount > balance) return false;` before
the balance update. This enforces the TLA+ guard condition from the Withdraw
action in the specification.

Validation: TLC model checking now passes with no violations. All 15 existing
unit tests pass. The repair is minimal and preserves existing functionality.

Quick Reference

When you receive:

  • TLC trace output → Use parse_tlc_trace.py to extract violation info
  • Invariant violation → Check repair_patterns.md section 1
  • Deadlock → Check repair_patterns.md section 2
  • Temporal property violation → Check repair_patterns.md section 3
  • Need to map TLA+ to C++ → Read tlaplus_to_cpp_mapping.md

Output format:

  1. Repaired C++ code (with comments explaining changes)
  2. Validation results (TLC output, test results)
  3. Explanation (violation → cause → repair → justification)

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Applies abstract interpretation using different abstract domains (intervals, octagons, polyhedra, sign, congruence) to statically analyze program variables and infer invariants, value ranges, and relationships. Use when analyzing program properties, inferring loop invariants, detecting potential errors, or understanding variable relationships through static analysis.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

Uses abstract interpretation to automatically infer loop invariants, function preconditions, and postconditions for formal verification. Generates invariants that capture program behavior and support correctness proofs in Dafny, Isabelle, Coq, and other verification systems. Use when adding formal specifications to code, generating verification conditions, inferring contracts for functions, or discovering loop invariants for proofs.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

Performs abstract interpretation over source code to infer possible program states, variable ranges, and data properties without executing the program. Reports potential runtime errors including out-of-bounds accesses, null dereferences, type inconsistencies, division by zero, and integer overflows. Use when analyzing code for potential runtime errors, performing static analysis, checking safety properties, or verifying program behavior without execution.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

Performs abstract interpretation to produce summarized execution traces and high-level program behavior representations. Highlights key control flow paths, variable relationships, loop invariants, function summaries, and potential runtime states using abstract domains (intervals, signs, nullness, etc.). Use when analyzing program behavior, understanding execution paths, computing loop invariants, tracking variable ranges, detecting potential runtime errors, or generating program summaries without concrete execution.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

Create ACSL (ANSI/ISO C Specification Language) formal annotations for C/C++ programs. Use this skill when working with formal verification, adding function contracts (requires/ensures), loop invariants, assertions, memory safety annotations, or any ACSL specifications. Supports Frama-C verification and generates comprehensive formal specifications for C/C++ code.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

CLI-based browser automation with persistent page state using ref-based element interaction. Use when users ask to navigate websites, interact with web pages, fill forms, take screenshots, test web applications, or extract information from web pages.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE258Updated Aug 21, 2026

See all skills by ArabelaTso

Report a problem with this skill