@codacy/verity-cli 0.33.3-experimental.d8b96f8 → 0.33.3-experimental.db99356

package/data/skills/verity-prove/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+description: >-
+  Formally verify a small, risky piece of code with a Lean 4 model written by the
+  Verity service: rank candidates from git history and the user's hint, CONFIRM with
+  the user which code to model, have the service generate the model, check it locally
+  with `verity prove check`, and replay any counterexample on the real code before
+  calling it a bug. Use when the user asks to verify, prove, or model-check code, or
+  asks "can this race / double run / fail open?". Anything typed after /verity-prove
+  is the user's hint: the file, function, or worry to check.
+---
+# /verity-prove — Formal verification of small pieces of code
+
+**The words after `/verity-prove` are the hint.** `/verity-prove` alone means "find me
+something worth checking"; `/verity-prove can the Stripe webhook double-charge on a
+redelivered event?` names the target and the worry. Carry it through every step as
+`$ARGUMENTS`.
+
+Verity keeps **Lean 4 models of the riskiest code**, not of the codebase: a few dozen
+lines that abstract ONE function and check a few properties by exhaustive bounded
+search. When a property fails you get the **shortest sequence of actions** that breaks
+it — a hypothesis to replay on the real code.
+
+**The service does the work; you orchestrate and present.** Ranking, writing the model
+and replaying its counterexample all run on the Verity service through the CLI. You
+do not search the codebase by hand, read the Lean library, or write Lean yourself
+unless a step below says so. Each step is one command; read its output, decide, move on.
+Lean runs on this machine only because the user asked for it; nothing here blocks a
+commit or a push.
+
+## The flow
+
+### 1. Candidates — one command
+
+```bash
+verity prove candidates --hint "$ARGUMENTS" --json    # hint given
+verity prove candidates --limit 8 --json              # no hint
+```
+
+The hint **widens the pool** (files it names by path or content come first) and the
+service ranks it, naming a symbol and the properties worth checking per file. Do not
+search for the code yourself: if the ranker's list does not contain what the user
+meant, say so and ask them for the file or function. A named file or function in the
+hint skips ranking: go straight to step 2 with it.
+
+### 2. Confirm with the user — always
+
+**Do not generate a model until the user has said which code.** Present at most three
+candidates in one short message: file, the symbol the ranker named, the first property
+it suggested, the reason. Ask. Their answer is the scope; do not widen it. If the hint
+is a worry in the user's words, it becomes an `intent` property — that needs no further
+confirmation, they just gave it.
+
+A hint that names the code, or a candidate the user saw in an earlier session, is
+**not** a confirmation of the exact symbol and property. Still ask, in one line:
+"I'll model `<file>#<symbol>` for `<property>` — go ahead?" It costs the user one word.
+
+### 3. Set up once per repo
+
+```bash
+verity prove init
+```
+
+If Lean is missing, say what will be installed and where before running
+`verity lean install` (official release, ≈800 MB download, 2.7 GB on disk, into
+`~/.verity/lean`). Everything else needs only `verity login`.
+
+### 4. Generate the model — one command
+
+```bash
+verity prove generate src/pay.ts#charge --hint "$ARGUMENTS"
+verity prove generate src/handler.ts --lines 120-180 --hint "$ARGUMENTS"   # a region
+```
+
+The service writes the model, the linter fences it, this machine elaborates it, with
+up to **3** rounds on compiler errors — all inside the command. It prints the check:
+per property `✓ holds to bound k`, `✗ COUNTEREXAMPLE` with the trace, or `? inconclusive`.
+Only if it ends with "no model elaborated" do you write one by hand from
+`.verity/proofs/Models/README.md` (one symbol, ≤ ~120 lines, `#eval Verity.model …`
+header, one `#eval Verity.check …` per property, tagged `.structural` or `.intent` with
+`source :=`); check it with `verity prove check <Name>`.
+
+### 5. Replay before you call it a bug — one command
+
+```bash
+verity prove replay <Name>                 # every counterexample
+verity prove replay <Name> --property P2   # one
+```
+
+The service replays the trace on the real code in a network-less container and accepts
+an answer only when code ran, the real function's lines appear verbatim in the harness,
+and the harness itself printed `REPLAY_RESULT=reproduced`. A model's counterexamples
+replay in parallel, so the command takes about as long as one replay (~30 s). **Run it
+in the foreground and wait for it**: do not background it, do other work, or report
+before every verdict is in. Read the verdict:
+
+- **REPRODUCED** — the real code does this. **This is final: do not replay by hand
+  as well.** Report it as a bug (step 6).
+- **DIVERGED** — the model is wrong about the code. Revise it **at most twice**, each
+  time saying what the replay showed:
+  `verity prove generate <target> --revise <Name> --note "<what the replay showed>"`,
+  then replay again. After two divergences, report "no faithful model found for
+  `<symbol>`" — that is a valid result, not a bug.
+- **UNVERIFIED / UNREPLAYABLE** — not evidence either way. Only now replay by hand:
+  a throwaway harness in a scratch directory that loads the real module and stubs only
+  I/O boundaries **in memory**. Never edit the user's source files, and never read from
+  or write to the user's databases, services or local stacks to do this — ask first if
+  a stub cannot be faithful.
+
+Never weaken or delete a property to get green; never add one to make something fail.
+
+### 6. Report, in a few lines
+
+What was modelled, what was checked to what bound, what was refuted and whether it
+replayed, and what remains `intent` awaiting the user's confirmation. **Never offer to
+commit the model** — `.verity/proofs/` is machine-local and ignores itself. What reaches
+the team is the bug report and, when asked, the fix. Then record the outcome:
+
+```bash
+verity reflect --user-input "Modelled runSeed (cli/src/lib/seed-runner.ts): P1 at-most-once refuted in 2 steps, replayed — guard checks a path the server never writes." --kind gotcha
+```
+
+The abstracted file's content leaves the machine for the Verity service and its
+replay container; only git-tracked files are ever read.
+
+## Do not
+
+- Search the codebase yourself before the ranker has answered, or instead of asking the user.
+- Model code the user did not confirm.
+- Write Lean by hand while `verity prove generate` can still try.
+- Replay by hand after a REPRODUCED verdict, or present a model-only counterexample as a bug.
+- Background `verity prove replay`, or report before its verdicts are in.
+- Write to the user's databases or local services, even throwaway rows.
+- Put `sorry` in a model, weaken a property to get green, or touch source files.
+- Run Lean from a hook, or install anything silently.
+- Commit, stage, or un-ignore anything under `.verity/proofs/`.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@codacy/verity-cli",
-  "version": "0.33.3-experimental.d8b96f8",
+  "version": "0.33.3-experimental.db99356",
   "description": "CLI for Verity quality gate service",
   "license": "SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE",
   "homepage": "https://verity.md",
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
   "files": [
     "bin/verity.js",
     "data/skills/",
+    "data/grammars/",
     "package.json",
     "README.md",
     "LICENSE",
@@ -31,8 +32,14 @@
   "devDependencies": {
     "@types/node": "^20",
     "esbuild": "^0.25.12",
+    "tree-sitter-go": "0.25.0",
+    "tree-sitter-java": "0.23.5",
+    "tree-sitter-javascript": "0.25.0",
+    "tree-sitter-python": "0.25.0",
+    "tree-sitter-typescript": "0.23.2",
     "tsx": "^4.21.0",
-    "typescript": "^5.4"
+    "typescript": "^5.4",
+    "web-tree-sitter": "0.27.0"
   },
   "dependencies": {
     "commander": "^12",