proof

Validates engineering claims with named tests, contracts, and runnable evidence.

1|Updated Apr 24, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/kreek/consult --skill proof-kreek
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: proof
Source: https://github.com/kreek/consult/tree/main/plugin/skills/proof
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/kreek/consult --skill proof-kreek

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Engineering work often gets declared "done" based on green test suites or intuition, without any check that would actually fail if the claim were false. This Skill enforces a discipline where every non-trivial claim is backed by a named proof: a runnable test, contract check, or documented manual verification tied to the specific behavior being asserted. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Proof Contracts: Structures every claim into five fields (claim, data invariant, boundary, check, evidence) so completion statements are auditable rather than assumed. - Boundary-focused testing guidance: Directs tests to seams where data shape or values observably change (endpoints, parsers, validators, pipelines, middleware) instead of per-helper unit tests. - Anti-pattern detection: Tripwire tables and a test-theater reference catch tests that assert implementation details, literal text, or mock calls instead of real behavior. - Use Case: After fixing a bug in an API endpoint, use this Skill to write a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after, then report the claim as proven with the exact command and output as evidence. ## Quick Start Use the proof skill to turn my claims about this bug fix into proof contracts and write the boundary tests that would fail if the fix were wrong.

Frequently Asked Questions about proof

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I prove a bug fix actually works?▼

Write a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after, entering at the boundary where the caller observes the behavior. Record the command and output as evidence, and verify the red state as deliberately as the green.

Where should I write tests for a pipeline or parser?▼

Place tests at seams where data shape or values observably change: extract output, transform output, parse result, or validator output. Assert success and error envelopes at those boundaries rather than writing one unit test per internal helper function.

When should I not add more tests?▼

Skip proof for edits with no behavior surface such as formatting, typos, comments, and renames that tooling already confirms. Also avoid tests that assert framework behavior, literal text in config files, or trivial passthroughs with no behavior.

Why is a green test suite not enough evidence?▼

A green suite only counts if a named check would fail when the specific claim is false. A passing check that never touches the changed boundary is partial evidence, so identify which test breaks if you are wrong before claiming completion.

What should I do when a test needs many mocks?▼

Treat heavy mocking as a design signal: the boundary is wrong, not the test framework. Simplify the seam by extracting pure transforms and pushing effects to the edges, or hand off to refactoring before adding more mocks.

How do I handle flaky tests?▼

Treat a flaky test as a bug in the test, the code, or the environment and fix it directly. Do not use sleeps or retries; make the check deterministic by controlling true system edges like clock, network, and filesystem.