CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

aris-proof-writer

Writes rigorous mathematical proofs for ML/AI theory. Use when asked to prove a theorem, lemma, proposition, or corollary, fill in missing proof steps, formalize a proof sketch, 补全证明, 写证明, 证明某个命题, or determine whether a claimed proof can actually be completed under the stated assumptions.

70

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is proof-writer in wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A rigorous, well-structured instruction skill with a clear multi-step workflow, explicit validation checkpoints, and concrete templates. Its main weakness is redundancy across the Inputs, Step 1, Step 2, and Key Rules sections, which inflates length without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Collapse the overlapping extraction lists in Inputs, Step 1 (Gather Proof Context), and Step 2 (Normalize the Claim) into a single canonical list referenced by the later steps to remove triplicated claim/assumption/notation/sketch bullets.

Trim or remove the closing Key Rules section, since each rule already appears inline in Steps 3, 5, and 6; if kept, reduce it to only rules not already stated verbatim above.

Consider extracting the Required File Structure template and Output Modes into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g. PROOF_TEMPLATE.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, which would also push progressive_disclosure higher.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of concept-explanation padding, but the Inputs / Step 1 / Step 2 sections each re-extract 'exact claim, assumptions, notation, proof sketch', and the closing Key Rules restates rules from Steps 3, 5, and 6 — redundancy that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete and specific: defines STATUS constants, a copy-paste Required File Structure template, named proof strategies, and three explicit output modes per status — minor gaps only (no worked example of a finished proof package).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six explicit numbered steps with a Feasibility Triage checkpoint (Step 3) before writing and a Final Verification checklist (Step 6), plus a feedback loop ('downgrade the status and write a blockage report instead of forcing a proof') — validation is present, so the destructive-write cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections with no nested references and no content that clearly belongs in a separate file, but the ~217-line body exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill exception and is monolithic rather than split across one-level-deep references.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person voice, concrete actions, explicit 'Use when' trigger clause with natural keywords including Chinese synonyms, and a distinctive niche. Both what and when are clearly answered.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'prove a theorem, lemma, proposition, or corollary', 'fill in missing proof steps', 'formalize a proof sketch', 'determine whether a claimed proof can actually be completed' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what ('Writes rigorous mathematical proofs for ML/AI theory') and when ('Use when asked to prove...'), with concrete trigger phrases answering both halves.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural user phrasings including synonyms and multilingual variants ('prove a theorem', 'fill in missing proof steps', 'formalize a proof sketch', '补全证明', '写证明', '证明某个命题'), matching the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (rigorous ML/AI theory proof writing) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
OpenLAIR/dr-claw
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.