「formal」の検索結果

Extract language-agnostic pseudocode from formally verified programs (Isabelle/HOL, Coq) while preserving verified control flow, data dependencies, and algorithmic logic. Use when: (1) Users have verified code and need readable pseudocode, (2) Documenting verified algorithms for broader audiences, (3) Translating verified implementations to other languages, (4) Creating algorithm specifications from verified code, (5) Preserving verification guarantees in pseudocode form, or (6) Abstracting proof-heavy code to essential logic. Maintains semantic faithfulness to verified implementation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Translate Python programs into equivalent Dafny code, preserving program semantics and ensuring the generated code is well-typed, executable, and verifiable. Use when the user asks to convert Python code to Dafny, port Python programs to Dafny, add formal verification to Python code, or create Dafny versions of Python algorithms with specifications.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes and verifies semantic equivalence between two functions, classes, or modules by examining control flow, data flow, and observable behavior. Use when comparing code implementations (refactored vs original, different implementations of same functionality, migration verification), determining if two code artifacts produce identical behavior, identifying behavioral differences between code versions, or validating that code changes preserve semantics. Supports formal reasoning and symbolic execution approaches.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Automatically derives TLA+ properties (invariants, safety, liveness) from natural-language requirements or structured requirement documents. Resolves ambiguities, asks clarifying questions for underspecified requirements, and outputs TLA+-compatible property definitions with semantic explanations. Use when translating system requirements, specifications, or behavioral constraints into formal TLA+ temporal logic properties for verification with TLC model checker.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate Isabelle or Coq proofs establishing partial or total correctness of imperative programs from code and formal specifications. Use when users need to: (1) Prove program correctness using Hoare logic, (2) Generate verification conditions from pre/postconditions, (3) Construct loop invariants and termination arguments, (4) Verify imperative programs with assignments, conditionals, and loops. Supports both partial correctness (if terminates, postcondition holds) and total correctness (terminates and postcondition holds) for both Isabelle/HOL and Coq.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Convert pseudocode, algorithm descriptions, or specifications into complete, executable Python code. Handles natural language descriptions, structured pseudocode, and formal algorithm specifications. Generates production-ready code with type hints, docstrings, error handling, and test cases. Use when users need to (1) convert pseudocode to Python, (2) implement algorithms from descriptions, (3) translate algorithm specifications to code, (4) generate Python implementations from textbook pseudocode, or (5) create executable code from high-level algorithm designs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Restructure and improve Isabelle or Coq proofs to enhance readability, modularity, and maintainability without changing semantics. Use when proofs are long and monolithic, have repeated patterns, use unclear naming, lack documentation, or when the user asks to refactor, clean up, improve, or reorganize their formal proofs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze and explain why Isabelle or Coq proofs fail, identifying the root cause such as type mismatches, missing assumptions, incorrect goals, unification failures, or inapplicable tactics. Use when the user encounters proof failures, error messages in formal verification, stuck proof states, or asks why their Isabelle/Coq proof doesn't work.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Automatically repair code violations of temporal properties using model-checking counterexamples as guidance. Use when working with formal verification results, temporal logic property violations (LTL, CTL), model checking counterexamples, or when asked to repair property violations, fix counterexamples, repair temporal properties, fix model checking violations, or repair code based on counterexamples. Applicable to concurrent systems, state machines, synchronization issues, safety/liveness properties, and resource management violations.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate complete, production-ready functions and classes from formal specifications, design descriptions, type signatures, or natural language requirements. Use this skill when implementing APIs from specifications, creating data structures from schemas, building classes from UML diagrams, generating code from contracts, or translating design documents into code. Supports multiple programming languages and follows language-specific best practices.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate concrete counterexamples when formal verification, assertions, or specifications fail. Use this skill when debugging failed proofs, understanding why verification fails, creating minimal reproducing examples, analyzing assertion violations, investigating invariant breaks, or diagnosing specification mismatches. Produces concrete input values, execution traces, and state information that demonstrate the failure.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate abstract Control Flow Graph (CFG) representations of programs showing loops, branches, and function calls for static analysis or verification. Use when users need to: (1) Visualize program control flow structure, (2) Generate CFGs for static analysis tools, (3) Create control flow abstractions for formal verification, (4) Analyze program paths and reachability, (5) Document program structure. Supports both function-level (intraprocedural) and program-level (interprocedural) analysis with multiple output formats (textual, DOT/Graphviz, JSON).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Translate C/C++ programs to equivalent Dafny code while preserving semantics and ensuring verification. Use when users ask to convert, translate, or port C/C++ code to Dafny, or when they need to formally verify C/C++ algorithms using Dafny's verification capabilities. Handles functions, structs, pointers, arrays, memory management, and ensures the generated Dafny code is well-typed, executable, verifiable, and can successfully run.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turn vague or partially formed AI, computer-science, data-driven, and engineering-method research directions into evidence-grounded, falsifiable, paper-ready Research Idea Briefs through heuristic questioning, staged confirmation, literature positioning, novelty attack, and method-figure planning. Use when the user needs to clarify a research idea, formalize inputs/outputs/objectives/constraints, frame background and motivation, select 3-5 anchor papers, identify a defensible gap, derive 2-3 contributions, stress-test novelty, or design an input-to-output method framework and core-paper figure. Also trigger on requests such as 明确科研 idea、启发式梳理 idea、互动追问科研问题、梳理论文创新点、定义研究任务、找对标论文、把研究方向变成论文方案、画方法框架图. Do not use as the primary workflow for running experiments, exhaustive systematic reviews, drafting full manuscript sections, or polishing finished prose.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Medical Parasitologist. Use when a task calls for Medical Parasitologist judgment. Reasons from specimen-stage fit, exposure-based pretest probability, and antigen-versus-antibody kinetics through thick/thin Giemsa films, formalin-ethyl-acetate concentration with trichrome, multiplex PCR, and EITB serology against CDC DPDx and WHO algorithms, while treating pfhrp2/3-deleted RDT false-negatives, single-O&P misses of Strongyloides, and colonization-mistaken-for-infection as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Industrial Ecologist. Use when a task calls for Industrial Ecologist judgment. Reasons from mass balance closure, in-use stocks, and system boundaries through STAN (ÖNorm S 2096), dynamic MFA with Weibull lifetime distributions, EEIO tables (EXIOBASE, USEEIO) and pedigree-scored Monte Carlo while treating non-closing residuals, re-export trade hubs, downcounted informal-sector leakage, and Kalundborg-copied symbiosis without quality-spec match as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Computational Linguist. Use when a task calls for Computational Linguist judgment. Reasons from UD/PTB formalisms, validate.py/eval.py (LAS/MLAS/ELAS), and evalb .prm settings through Stanza/UDPipe pipelines, PropBank/FrameNet/AMR/UMR layers, IAA (κ, Krippendorff α), CONDA contamination checks, and ARR reproducibility while treating tokenizer mismatch, oracle inflation, train–test leakage, and guideline drift as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Computer Scientist. Use when a task calls for Computer Scientist judgment. Reasons from computational models, abstraction contracts, invariants, and measurable complexity through CLRS-grade algorithm analysis, impossibility results (FLP, CAP, NP-hardness), property-based and chaos testing, and formal tools (TLA+, Coq, Z3) while treating partial failure, race conditions, label leakage, and abstraction leaks like GC pauses and clock skew as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Computer Hardware Engineer. Use when a task calls for Computer Hardware Engineer judgment. Reasons from CPI/AMAT and MESI/MOESI coherence through SystemVerilog RTL, PrimeTime/Design Compiler/Innovus signoff, PCIe LTSSM/TLP, SVA formal, and clock-gating power while treating CDC metastability, false-path abuse, X-optimism, and coherency traffic as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run Bayesian phylogenetic analysis with MrBayes, BEAST2, RevBayes, and PhyloBayes including MCMC convergence diagnostics and model comparison. Use when needing posterior probability support, Bayesian model averaging, site-heterogeneous models for deep phylogenies, or formal model comparison via stepping-stone sampling.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Facilitate a structured conversation to define architecture principles for a repository. Supports multiple architecture styles: clean architecture (default), hexagonal / ports & adapters, modular monolith, or custom. Produces a formal architecture document that the corresponding atom will use. Use when setting up a new project, defining architecture standards, or when the user says 'setup architecture', 'define layers', 'architecture principles', 'help me define my architecture', 'hexagonal architecture', 'modular monolith', 'ports and adapters', or 'define my architecture style'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Facilitate a structured conversation to define clean code principles for a repository. Produces a formal clean-code.md document that the clean-code atom will use as its override. Use when setting up coding standards, defining code quality rules, or when the user says 'setup clean code', 'define coding standards', 'code quality principles', 'coding guidelines', or 'help me define my code standards'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Facilitate a structured conversation to define requirement standards for a project — epic and feature definitions, scenario structure, AC format, priority notation, status workflow, and naming conventions. Produces a formal requirement-standards.md that the requirement-quality atom reads via config resolution, customising its embedded defaults for the team's product process. Use when setting up a new project, defining product standards, or when the user says 'set up requirement standards', 'define feature standards', 'configure requirement forge', 'define how features should be structured', or 'requirement forge refiner'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Facilitate a structured conversation to define DDD guardrails for domain design within a repository. Produces a formal ddd-principles.md document that the domain-driven-design atom will use as its override. Use when setting up domain design principles, defining aggregate rules, or when the user says 'setup DDD', 'define domain rules', 'DDD principles', or 'help me define my domain patterns'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。