「tla+」の検索結果

Automatically generate TLA+ specifications from program code, repositories, or system implementations. Use when asked to generate TLA+ spec, create TLA+ specification from code, convert program to TLA+, formalize system in TLA+, extract TLA+ model from code, or when working with formal specification of concurrent systems, distributed systems, protocols, algorithms, or state machines that need to be verified.

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 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.

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 simplify and minimize TLA+ specifications by reducing redundant state variables, merging equivalent actions, and minimizing invariants while preserving specified properties. Use when working with TLA+ specifications that need optimization, simplification, or reduction. Triggers when users ask to minimize, reduce, simplify, or optimize TLA+ specs, or when they want to remove redundancy from formal specifications while maintaining semantic equivalence.

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。

Create, run, and verify TLA+ and PlusCal formal specifications. Use for modeling distributed systems, protocols, concurrent algorithms, state machines. Can compose specs from code, find divergences between spec and implementation, spot concurrency bugs and invariant violations. Use when asked to "write a TLA+ spec", "model check", "verify protocol", "find race conditions", or "formal verification".

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 generate TLA+ specifications from source code (C/C++, Python) for formal verification of distributed systems. Use when users need to: (1) Generate TLA+ specs from program implementations, (2) Model distributed systems, consensus protocols, or concurrent algorithms, (3) Extract state variables, actions, and invariants from code, (4) Create formal specifications for model checking with TLC, (5) Verify safety and liveness properties of distributed systems. Particularly effective for message-passing systems, replication protocols, consensus algorithms, and distributed transactions.

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。

Proves protocols and agent workflows with TLA+, P, Alloy, Z3, Dafny, or Lean. Use when proving protocols correct, writing TLA+ specs, or verifying LLM 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。

Expert guide for mathematical formal verification, SMT solver constraints (Z3, Dafny, TLA+), invariant theorem proving for FinTech billing state machines, RBAC/ABAC authorization, and zero-violation architecture / Panduan ahli verifikasi formal matematis, SMT solver (Z3, Dafny, TLA+), pembuktian invarian state machine billing FinTech, otorisasi RBAC/ABAC, dan arsitektur zero-violation.

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。

Mathematical foundations, logical structures, and formal verification guidance. Trigger when: - Designing protocol contracts, formal specifications, verifying state spaces, or using proof assistants. - Tasks involve: TLA+, Alloy, Lean, Coq, model checkers, invariants, temporal logic. - Prompt contains keywords: formal verification, alloy, tla+, lean, coq, invariant, state machine, model checker, liveness, safety.

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。

TLA+ formal verification for design correctness and PBT pipeline integration

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。

TLA+ and PlusCal for specifying distributed system invariants. Decision heuristics for when formal verification adds value, key patterns, state explosion management, and alternatives comparison.

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 natural-language requirements or structured specification documents into formal temporal logic properties (LTL, CTL, safety/liveness properties). Use when users need to formalize requirements for model checking, formal verification, or property specification. Handles embedded/real-time systems, hardware verification, concurrent systems, and reactive systems. Resolves ambiguities, asks clarifying questions when needed, and outputs machine-checkable formulas with explanations. Supports multiple output formats (SPIN, NuSMV, Uppaal, TLA+, Maude).

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 generates executable test cases from model checking counterexample traces. Translates abstract counterexample states and transitions into concrete test inputs, execution steps, and assertions that reproduce property violations. Use when working with model checker outputs (SPIN, CBMC, NuSMV, TLA+, Java PathFinder, etc.) and needing to create regression tests, validate bug fixes, or reproduce verification failures in executable test suites.

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 Formal Methods Researcher. Use when a task calls for Formal Methods Researcher judgment. Reasons from operational semantics and temporal logics through SPIN/TLA+/PRISM, Coq/Lean/Isabelle, Z3/CVC5, refinement and separation logic, vacuity and false-positive diagnosis, and Dafny/F* versus property-based testing boundaries.

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 Distributed Systems Researcher. Use when a task calls for Distributed Systems Researcher judgment. Reasons from failure models, consistency contracts, and tail-latency-and-recovery performance through TLA+ model checking, Jepsen and Porcupine linearizability checking, and YCSB/DeathStarBench benchmarking with iptables and kill -9 fault injection, while treating unbounded leases and split-brain, clock skew under NTP, and GC-induced p99 spikes 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。

Distributed consensus algorithms and logical time for cloud and multi-node systems. Covers Lamport clocks, vector clocks, FLP impossibility, Paxos (basic, multi, fast), Raft, Viewstamped Replication, Byzantine fault tolerance basics, quorum reads/writes (N/R/W), leader election, and TLA+ specification style. Use when designing replicated state machines, picking a consensus protocol, reasoning about split-brain and quorum loss, or writing formal specs for distributed coordination.

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。

Use when a protocol, concurrent algorithm, or design needs a model-checked TLA+ or Alloy spec, or a TLC or Apalache trace needs reading. Not for choosing when to model: use validation-first-driven.

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。

Expert-level formal methods covering formal specification, model checking, theorem proving, type theory, program verification, and formal languages.

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。

Audit a compliance-ladder design (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) plus their adapter conformance fixtures — Codex, Claude Code, Cloudflare, Ollama/LM Studio, custom stdio/HTTP agents — for the two failure modes that make a C-badge or T-fidelity label a lie: the ladder disagreeing with itself across doc/schema/ui/probe surfaces, and a level being reachable by self-report because no daemon-witnessed negative probe actually tries to forge it. Use when designing or freezing a compliance ladder, wiring an adapter conformance probe suite, deciding whether a numeric C-badge or T-label is safe to ship, or investigating a self-attestation or observed-to-controlled bypass risk. NOT for auditing a cryptographic protocol or whitepaper for adversarial soundness (`redteam-review`), writing TLA+/formal invariants for a daemon monitor (`runtime-verification-for-agents`), or agent identity, successor linkage, and reputation across restarts (`agent-identity-continuity-reputation`).

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。