@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.18

package/dist/skills/proof-checker/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,499 @@
+---
+name: proof-checker
+description: Rigorous mathematical proof verification and fixing workflow. Reads a LaTeX proof, identifies gaps via cross-model review (Codex GPT-5.5 xhigh), fixes each gap with full derivations, re-reviews, and generates an audit report. Use when user says "检查证明", "verify proof", "proof check", "审证明", "check this proof", or wants rigorous mathematical verification of a theory paper.
+argument-hint: [path-to-tex-file or proof-description]
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit
+---
+
+# Proof Checker: Rigorous Mathematical Verification & Fixing
+
+Systematically verify a mathematical proof via cross-model adversarial review, fix identified gaps, re-review until convergence, and generate a detailed audit report with proof-obligation accounting.
+
+## Context: $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Constants
+
+- MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3
+- REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.5` via Codex reviewer agent, reasoning effort always `xhigh`
+- **REVIEWER_BACKEND = `codex`** — Default: Codex reviewer agent (`spawn_agent`, xhigh). Override with `— reviewer: oracle-pro` for GPT-5.5 Pro via Oracle MCP. See `shared-references/reviewer-routing.md`.
+- AUDIT_DOC: `PROOF_AUDIT.md` at the paper directory root, alongside `main.tex` (cumulative log; when invoked via `/paper-writing`, this is `paper/PROOF_AUDIT.md`)
+- REPORT_TEX: `proof_audit_report.tex` (formal before/after PDF)
+- STATE_FILE: `PROOF_CHECK_STATE.json` (for recovery)
+- SKELETON_DOC: `PROOF_SKELETON.md` (micro-claim inventory)
+- **RENDER_HTML = true** — When `true` (default), auto-render `PROOF_AUDIT.md` to HTML at workflow end via `/render-html`. Uses **full review gate** (audit-class, math-heavy — render-fidelity check protects against MathJax breakage). Set `false` to skip, or pass `— render html: false`. **Non-blocking**: failures don't invalidate the proof audit.
+
+### Acceptance Gate (objective, replaces subjective scoring)
+
+The proof passes when ALL of the following hold:
+1. Zero open FATAL or CRITICAL issues
+2. Every theorem/lemma has: (i) explicit hypotheses, (ii) proof with all interchanges justified, (iii) every application discharges hypotheses in the ledger
+3. All big-O/Θ/o statements have declared parameter dependence and uniformity scope
+4. Counterexample pass executed on all key lemmas (log candidates even if none found)
+
+## Issue Taxonomy (20 categories, 4 groups)
+
+### Group A: Logic & Proof Structure
+
+| Category | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| **UNJUSTIFIED_ASSERTION** | Claim stated without proof or reference | "The Hessian splits into Gram blocks" |
+| **UNPROVEN_SUBCLAIM** | "Clearly" / "it follows" hides a nontrivial lemma | "By symmetry, the cross-terms vanish" without checking |
+| **QUANTIFIER_ERROR** | Wrong order ∀/∃, missing "for sufficiently small κ" | "For all π, there exists ε" vs "there exists ε for all π" |
+| **IMPLICATION_REVERSAL** | Uses (A⇒B) as (B⇒A), or claims equivalence with only one direction | |
+| **CASE_INCOMPLETE** | Misses boundary/degenerate cases | Singular covariance, zero weight, non-unique argmin |
+| **CIRCULAR_DEPENDENCY** | Lemma uses theorem that depends on it | |
+| **LOGICAL_GAP** | A step is not justified by what precedes it | B=Θ(1) → β_K=0 without analyzing W |
+
+### Group B: Analysis & Measure Theory
+
+| Category | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| **ILLEGAL_INTERCHANGE** | Swaps limit/expectation/derivative/integral without DCT/MCT/Fubini | Differentiating under E without domination |
+| **NONUNIFORM_CONVERGENCE** | Pointwise convergence used as uniform | sup and limit swapped |
+| **MISSING_DOMINATION** | DCT cited but no dominating function given | |
+| **INTEGRABILITY_GAP** | Uses E|X|^p without proving/assuming finite moments | |
+| **REGULARITY_GAP** | Differentiability/Lipschitz/convexity used but not established | |
+| **STOCHASTIC_MODE_CONFUSION** | Mixes a.s./in prob./in L²/in expectation | |
+
+### Group C: Model & Parameter Tracking
+
+| Category | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| **MISSING_DERIVATION** | A quantity is used but never derived from the model | Risk functional with undefined B, W |
+| **HIDDEN_ASSUMPTION** | Proof silently uses a condition not in the theorem | Gaussianity assumed but not stated |
+| **INSUFFICIENT_ASSUMPTION** | Hypotheses too weak for proof (counterexample exists) | Moment conditions admitting 2-point distributions |
+| **DIMENSION_TRACKING** | Parameter dependence (d, n, K, ...) not explicit | d enters only through κ |
+| **NORMALIZATION_MISMATCH** | Coordinate/scaling conventions inconsistent | Rescaled vs raw coordinates |
+| **CONSTANT_DEPENDENCE_HIDDEN** | "C" depends on d,n,K but treated as universal | |
+
+### Group D: Scope & Claims
+
+| Category | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| **SCOPE_OVERCLAIM** | Conclusion stated more broadly than proof supports | "β_K=0" with only generic overlap |
+| **REFERENCE_MISMATCH** | Cited theorem's hypotheses not verified at point of use | |
+
+## Two-Axis Severity System
+
+### Axis A — Proof Status (what is wrong)
+
+| Status | Meaning |
+|--------|---------|
+| **INVALID** | Statement false as written (counterexample exists or contradiction) |
+| **UNJUSTIFIED** | Could be true, but current proof does not establish it |
+| **UNDERSTATED** | True only after strengthening assumptions |
+| **OVERSTATED** | True only after weakening conclusion / adding qualifiers |
+| **UNCLEAR** | Ambiguous notation / definition drift (not wrong per se) |
+
+### Axis B — Impact (how much breaks)
+
+| Impact | Meaning |
+|--------|---------|
+| **GLOBAL** | Breaks main theorem or core dependency chain |
+| **LOCAL** | Affects a side result but not the main theorem |
+| **COSMETIC** | Exposition only |
+
+### Severity Labels (derived)
+
+| Label | Definition |
+|-------|------------|
+| **FATAL** | INVALID + GLOBAL |
+| **CRITICAL** | (INVALID + LOCAL) or (UNJUSTIFIED + GLOBAL) |
+| **MAJOR** | (UNJUSTIFIED + LOCAL) or (UNDERSTATED/OVERSTATED + GLOBAL) |
+| **MINOR** | Clarity / notation / dimension bookkeeping that doesn't change claims |
+
+## Side-Condition Checklists for Common Theorems
+
+When the proof invokes any of the following, require explicit verification of ALL listed conditions:
+
+| Theorem | Required Conditions |
+|---------|-------------------|
+| **DCT** (Dominated Convergence) | Pointwise a.e. convergence + integrable dominating function |
+| **MCT** (Monotone Convergence) | Monotone increasing + non-negative |
+| **Fubini/Tonelli** | Product measurability + integrability (Fubini) or non-negative (Tonelli) |
+| **Leibniz integral rule** | Continuity of integrand + dominating function for derivative |
+| **Implicit Function Theorem** | Continuous differentiability + non-singular Jacobian |
+| **Taylor with remainder** | Sufficient differentiability + remainder form (Lagrange/integral) |
+| **Jensen's inequality** | Convexity of function + integrability |
+| **Cauchy-Schwarz** | Correct inner product space + integrability of both factors |
+| **Weyl/Davis-Kahan** | Symmetry/Hermiticity + perturbation bound conditions |
+| **Analytic continuation** | Domain connectivity + identity theorem conditions |
+| **WLOG reduction** | Invariance under claimed symmetry + reduction is reversible |
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Phase 0: Preparation
+
+1. **Locate the proof**: Find the main `.tex` file(s).
+2. **Read the entire proof**: Extract list of all theorems/lemmas/propositions/corollaries/definitions/assumptions.
+3. **Read reference materials**: Reference papers, prior results.
+4. **Build a section map**: Structured list with line numbers and key claims.
+5. **Identify the main theorem**: Central result, assumptions, claims.
+
+### Phase 0.5: Proof-Obligation Ledger
+
+Build formal accounting artifacts. Save to `PROOF_SKELETON.md`:
+
+#### 1. Dependency DAG
+Nodes = Definitions / Assumptions / Lemmas / Theorems. Edges = "uses". **Detect cycles** (including semantic circularity where Lemma A uses a corollary that quietly depends on A).
+
+#### 2. Assumption Ledger
+For each theorem/lemma, list every hypothesis with WHERE each is verified (or mark "UNVERIFIED"). Track **usage-minimal assumption sets** — which assumptions were actually used vs merely stated.
+
+#### 3. Typed Symbol Table
+Each symbol must have a **type signature**:
+```
+κ : scalar ∈ (0,1), depends on (d, α_t, Σ, μ)
+u* : vector ∈ ℝ^d, u* = C^{-1}m
+B^even : matrix ∈ ℝ^{(L+1)×(L+1)}, symmetric PSD
+Ψ_v : function ℝ → ℝ, analytic in (ζ,κ), parity determined by v
+```
+Flag any symbol whose meaning changes or whose type is inconsistent across uses.
+
+#### 4. Canonical Quantified Statements
+For each theorem/lemma, rewrite the statement with **explicit quantifiers, domains, and limit order**:
+```
+∀K ≥ 3, ∀π ∈ Π_K^{ms,∘} \ E_K, ∃κ_0 > 0 such that ∀κ ∈ (0, κ_0):
+  h_act^{(K,π)} = Θ(κ^{α_K^act})  [uniform in π on compact subsets]
+```
+If you cannot restate a theorem this precisely, mark it **UNCLEAR — needs disambiguation**.
+
+#### 5. Micro-Claim Inventory
+Every nontrivial step becomes a numbered micro-claim in **sequent form**:
+```
+MC-17: Context: [Lemma 3.1, κ < κ_0, Z_κ has bounded moments up to order 2m+2]
+       ⊢ Goal: P̂_0 is positive definite
+       Rule: monomials linearly independent on support of continuous distribution
+       Side-conditions: positive density near origin ✓ (by GMM weak convergence)
+```
+Each micro-claim has: justification rule name + required conditions + where conditions are proven.
+
+#### 6. Limit-Order Map
+Track every asymptotic statement's **limit order and uniformity scope**:
+```
+h_act = Θ(κ^α)  [as κ→0, uniform in π on compact subsets of Π_K, for fixed K]
+τ_act ~ (b/a)n   [as n→∞, for fixed κ,K,π with x_K ≪ 1]
+```
+Flag any statement where limit order is ambiguous or uniformity is unclear.
+
+### Phase 1: First Review (Codex GPT-5.5 xhigh)
+
+Submit the **complete proof content** with the following **mandatory reviewer checklist** in the prompt:
+
+```text
+spawn_agent:
+  model: gpt-5.5
+  reasoning_effort: xhigh
+  message: |
+    You are performing a rigorous mathematical proof review. For EVERY theorem,
+    lemma, and proposition, check ALL of the following:
+
+    ## MANDATORY CHECKS
+
+    A. DEFINITIONS: List any symbol whose meaning is ambiguous or changes.
+    B. HYPOTHESIS DISCHARGE: For each lemma/theorem APPLICATION (not statement),
+       list each hypothesis and whether it was verified, with location.
+    C. INEQUALITY AUDIT: For each inequality chain, verify direction, missing
+       absolute values, missing conditions (convexity, PSD, integrability).
+    D. INTERCHANGE AUDIT: Flag every limit/derivative/expectation/integral
+       interchange. State which theorem justifies it (DCT/MCT/Fubini/Leibniz)
+       and which conditions are verified/missing.
+    E. PROBABILITY MODE: Track whether claims are a.s./in prob./in expectation/
+       w.h.p. Ensure transitions are justified.
+    F. UNIFORMITY & CONSTANTS: For every O(·), o(·), Θ(·), ≲, state whether
+       it is uniform over all parameters. List hidden parameter dependence.
+    G. EDGE/DEGENERATE CASES: Attempt to break each key lemma with a 1D,
+       low-rank, or extreme-parameter construction.
+    H. DEPENDENCY CONSISTENCY: Detect cycles or forward references to unproven
+       results.
+
+    ## OUTPUT FORMAT (per issue)
+    For each issue found, provide:
+    - id: sequential number
+    - status: INVALID / UNJUSTIFIED / UNDERSTATED / OVERSTATED / UNCLEAR
+    - impact: GLOBAL / LOCAL / COSMETIC
+    - category: [from taxonomy]
+    - location: section/equation/line
+    - statement: what the proof claims
+    - why_invalid: why this is wrong or unjustified
+    - counterexample: YES (describe) / NO / CANDIDATE (describe attempt)
+    - affects: which downstream results break if this is wrong
+    - minimal_fix: how to fix it
+
+    [FULL PROOF CONTENT HERE]
+```
+
+**Save the reviewer `agent_id`.** Parse into structured issue list. Write to `PROOF_AUDIT.md`.
+
+### Phase 1.5: Counterexample Red Team
+
+For each CRITICAL or MAJOR issue, and for every key lemma that introduces:
+- a new inequality bound
+- an identifiability/uniqueness claim
+- a curvature/PSD/strong convexity assertion
+- a uniform-in-parameter claim
+- a convergence mode upgrade (pointwise → uniform, in prob → w.h.p.)
+
+Systematically attempt to construct counterexamples using:
+
+| Strategy | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| **Dimensional collapse** | Set d=1 or 2, K=2, n small |
+| **Degeneracy** | Singular covariance, tiny weight, overlapping means, identical components |
+| **Extremal distributions** | Two-point ±a, bounded non-subGaussian, heavy tails |
+| **Adversarial parameter scaling** | Pick parameters making neglected terms dominate |
+| **Numeric falsification** | Translate lemma to a function, brute-force optimize over small domain |
+
+**Rule**: Label "counterexample found" ONLY if algebraically verified. Otherwise log as "candidate counterexample — needs verification."
+
+Record all attempts (successful or not) in `PROOF_AUDIT.md`.
+
+### Phase 2: Fix Implementation
+
+For each issue, ordered by severity (FATAL → CRITICAL → MAJOR → MINOR):
+
+#### Step 2a: Choose fix strategy
+For each issue, explicitly choose one of:
+- **ADD_DERIVATION**: Write missing proof steps
+- **STRENGTHEN_ASSUMPTION**: Add conditions to theorem statement
+- **WEAKEN_CLAIM**: Reduce conclusion scope
+- **ADD_REFERENCE**: Cite known result + verify its conditions apply
+
+Log this choice — it is a scope-changing decision when it alters theorem statements.
+
+#### Step 2b: Derive the fix mathematically
+- Complete mathematical derivation, not just a claim
+- If new proposition/lemma needed, write in full theorem-proof style
+
+#### Step 2c: Implement in LaTeX
+- Edit the `.tex` file
+- Preserve existing `\label` references where possible
+
+#### Step 2d: Record the fix
+```markdown
+### Fix N: [SHORT TITLE]
+**Issue**: [id] [CATEGORY] — [description]
+**Severity**: FATAL / CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR
+**Status**: INVALID / UNJUSTIFIED / UNDERSTATED / OVERSTATED
+**Impact**: GLOBAL / LOCAL / COSMETIC
+**Fix strategy**: ADD_DERIVATION / STRENGTHEN_ASSUMPTION / WEAKEN_CLAIM / ADD_REFERENCE
+**Location**: Section X, Lines Y-Z
+
+**BEFORE**: [what the proof originally did]
+**WHY WRONG**: [mathematical problem, with counterexample if applicable]
+**AFTER**: [what the fix does]
+**KEY EQUATION**: [central new equation]
+**PROOF OBLIGATIONS ADDED**: [new conditions/lemmas introduced]
+**DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS**: [which results now need re-checking]
+```
+
+#### Step 2e: Compile check
+```bash
+pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode <file>.tex 2>&1 | grep -E "Error|Warning|undefined"
+```
+
+### Phase 3: Re-Review (Codex GPT-5.5 xhigh)
+
+Launch a fresh reviewer agent for the next review round. Do not use `send_input` here; proof-checker keeps each round independent. Request the same mandatory checklist.
+
+Check acceptance gate. If not met, repeat Phases 2-3 (up to MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS).
+
+### Phase 3.5: Global Closure & Independent Verification
+
+#### Global closure checks
+After all fixes, verify the proof as a whole:
+- **Statement–conclusion match**: Does the proof end with EXACTLY what the theorem claims (quantifiers, constants, uniformity)?
+- **All obligations discharged**: Every node in the obligation DAG is proven or explicitly assumed (and the theorem statement includes it).
+- **Case analysis coverage**: Cases partition the domain AND include boundary/degenerate cases.
+- **Induction correctness** (if applicable): Base case, inductive step, correct use of IH, induction measure strictly decreases.
+- **WLOG reductions**: Each "without loss of generality" spawns a micro-claim proving the reduction is lossless.
+- **No silent assumption strengthening**: Any fix that strengthened assumptions has propagated to the main theorem statement.
+
+#### Independent second review for FATAL/CRITICAL fixes
+For any fix that resolved a FATAL or CRITICAL issue, submit the **fixed section alone** (without showing the previous critique) to a **fresh Codex thread**:
+
+```text
+spawn_agent:
+  model: gpt-5.5
+  reasoning_effort: xhigh
+  message: |
+    Blind review of the following proof section. You have NOT seen any prior
+    review or discussion. Check every step for correctness, hidden assumptions,
+    illegal interchanges, and counterexamples.
+    [FIXED SECTION ONLY]
+```
+
+If the blind reviewer finds new issues, re-enter Phase 2.
+
+#### Regression proof-audit
+After fixes, re-run:
+- DAG acyclicity check (no new cycles introduced)
+- Counterexample suite on all DOWNSTREAM lemmas of modified results
+- Assumption-delta report: what became stronger/weaker due to fixes?
+
+### Phase 3.9: Unrecoverable Proof Protocol
+
+If acceptance gate is not met after MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS, output a **Proof Unrecoverable Report**:
+1. Minimal set of blocking FATAL/CRITICAL issues that could not be resolved
+2. Salvage options ranked: (a) weaken claim, (b) strengthen assumptions, (c) add missing lemmas, (d) restructure argument
+3. Which parts of the proof are likely still reusable
+4. Recommended next steps for the author
+
+Do NOT silently declare success. The report must be honest.
+
+### Phase 4: Audit Report Generation
+
+Generate `proof_audit_report.tex` with:
+
+1. **Overview table**: All issues with two-axis severity, category, fix strategy, status
+2. **Before/After logic chain**: Red (BEFORE) → Green (AFTER) comparison
+3. **For each fix**: original proof → why wrong → counterexample (if any) → complete derivation → remaining subtleties
+4. **Proof-obligation diff**: What was unverified before, what is verified now
+5. **Summary**: Now proven / still assumed / open problems
+6. **Colored boxes**: BEFORE (red), AFTER (green), WHY WRONG (orange), KEY INSIGHT (blue), WARNING (yellow)
+
+Compile: `pdflatex proof_audit_report.tex && pdflatex proof_audit_report.tex`
+
+### Phase 5: State Persistence
+
+Write `PROOF_CHECK_STATE.json`:
+```json
+{
+  "status": "completed",
+  "rounds": 2,
+  "review_agent_ids": ["..."],
+  "fatal_fixed": 0,
+  "critical_fixed": 3,
+  "major_fixed": 2,
+  "minor_fixed": 1,
+  "counterexamples_found": 1,
+  "counterexample_candidates": 2,
+  "acceptance_gate": "PASS",
+  "timestamp": "..."
+}
+```
+
+## Key Rules
+
+### Mathematical rigor
+- **Never accept a proof step on faith**. "Clearly" / "it follows" / "by standard arguments" are red flags — each must spawn a micro-claim.
+- **Hypothesis discharge**: Every time a lemma is APPLIED, verify EACH of its hypotheses at that point. Use the side-condition checklists above.
+- **Interchange discipline**: Every swap of limit/expectation/derivative/integral must cite a theorem (DCT/MCT/Fubini/Leibniz) and verify its conditions with explicit dominating function or integrability proof.
+- **Uniformity discipline**: Every O(·)/Θ(·) must declare what parameters it is uniform over. "O(1)" that secretly depends on d,n,K is a CONSTANT_DEPENDENCE_HIDDEN issue.
+- **Quantifier discipline**: Check ∀/∃ order. "For sufficiently small κ" must specify: does κ₀ depend on K? On π? On d?
+- **Counterexample-first**: Before trying to fix a gap, first try to break it.
+- **WLOG prohibition**: Every "without loss of generality" must have an explicit micro-claim proving the reduction. No free WLOGs.
+- **No silent assumption strengthening**: Any fix that adds conditions must propagate to the theorem statement.
+
+### Cross-model protocol
+- **Claude analyzes, Codex reviews**: Claude reads proof, formulates questions, implements fixes. Codex provides adversarial review.
+- **Codex reasoning always xhigh**: Never downgrade.
+- **Send full content**: Don't summarize — send actual math for line-by-line checking.
+- **Fresh reviewer agents**: Save each returned `agent_id` for traceability, but launch a new `spawn_agent` for each review round. Do not use `send_input` across proof-checker rounds.
+
+### Fix quality
+- **Minimal fixes**: Fix exactly what's broken, nothing more.
+- **Full derivation**: Every fix includes complete mathematical argument.
+- **Explicit scope decisions**: Each fix is tagged ADD_DERIVATION / STRENGTHEN_ASSUMPTION / WEAKEN_CLAIM / ADD_REFERENCE.
+- **Compile after each fix**: LaTeX must compile cleanly.
+
+### Scope honesty
+- **Don't overclaim**: If a fix makes a result conditional, say so.
+- **Separate "proven" from "assumed"**: The audit report has an explicit section for this.
+- **Log open problems**: Issues requiring future work are listed, not hidden.
+
+## Output Files
+
+| File | Content | When |
+|------|---------|------|
+| `PROOF_SKELETON.md` | Dependency DAG + assumption ledger + micro-claims | Phase 0.5 |
+| `PROOF_AUDIT.md` | Cumulative round-by-round audit log | Updated each round |
+| `PROOF_AUDIT.json` | Machine-readable submission verdict (see below) | Always emitted |
+| `proof_audit_report.tex/.pdf` | Formal before/after report | Phase 4 |
+| `PROOF_CHECK_STATE.json` | State for recovery | Phase 5 |
+| `PROOF_AUDIT.html` (+ `.review.json` sidecar) | Single-file HTML view auto-rendered via `/render-html "PROOF_AUDIT.md" --json "PROOF_AUDIT.json"`. **Non-blocking** — if `/render-html` fails the audit still counts as complete. | Workflow end (when `RENDER_HTML = true`, default) |
+
+## Submission Artifact Emission
+
+This skill **always** writes `PROOF_AUDIT.json` at the paper directory
+root (i.e. `paper/PROOF_AUDIT.json` when invoked from `/paper-writing`
+with paper-dir `paper/`; `<your-paper-dir>/PROOF_AUDIT.json` when invoked
+standalone), regardless of caller or whether the paper contains theorems.
+A paper with no `\begin{theorem}` / `\begin{lemma}` / `\begin{proof}` emits
+verdict `NOT_APPLICABLE`; silent skip is forbidden. `paper-writing`
+Phase 6 and `verify_paper_audits.sh` both rely on this artifact
+existing at `<paper-dir>/PROOF_AUDIT.json`.
+
+The artifact conforms to the schema in `shared-references/assurance-contract.md`:
+
+```json
+{
+  "audit_skill":      "proof-checker",
+  "verdict":          "PASS | WARN | FAIL | NOT_APPLICABLE | BLOCKED | ERROR",
+  "reason_code":      "all_proofs_complete | minor_gaps | critical_gap | no_theorems | ...",
+  "summary":          "One-line human-readable verdict summary.",
+  "audited_input_hashes": {
+    "main.tex":                 "sha256:...",
+    "sections/4.theory.tex":    "sha256:..."
+  },
+  "trace_path":       ".aris/traces/proof-checker/<date>_run<NN>/",
+  "thread_id":        "<codex mcp thread id>",
+  "reviewer_model":   "gpt-5.5",
+  "reviewer_reasoning": "xhigh",
+  "generated_at":     "<UTC ISO-8601>",
+  "details": {
+    "theorems_audited": <int>,
+    "issues": [ { "id": "T1-H3", "severity": "FATAL|CRITICAL|MAJOR|MINOR",
+                  "category": "quantifier|domination|...",
+                  "location": "sections/4.theory.tex:L182",
+                  "note": "..." }, ... ]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### `audited_input_hashes` scope
+
+Hash the **declared input set** actually reviewed — the theorem-bearing
+`.tex` files passed into this invocation — not a repo-wide union and not
+the reviewer's self-reported opened subset. The external verifier rehashes
+these entries; any mismatch flags `STALE`.
+
+**Path convention** (must match `verify_paper_audits.sh`): keys are
+**paths relative to the paper directory** (no `paper/` prefix — the
+verifier resolves relative to the paper dir; prefixing produces
+`paper/paper/...` and false-fails as STALE). Use **absolute paths** for
+files outside the paper dir.
+
+### Verdict decision table
+
+| Input state                                           | Verdict          | `reason_code` example |
+|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|
+| No theorems / lemmas / proofs in paper                | `NOT_APPLICABLE` | `no_theorems`         |
+| Theorems present but referenced files unreadable      | `BLOCKED`        | `source_unreadable`   |
+| All proof obligations discharged, no gaps             | `PASS`           | `all_proofs_complete` |
+| Only MINOR issues (notation / exposition)             | `WARN`           | `minor_gaps`          |
+| Any FATAL or CRITICAL issue (logic gap, wrong claim)  | `FAIL`           | `critical_gap`        |
+| Reviewer invocation failed (network / malformed)      | `ERROR`          | `reviewer_error`      |
+
+MAJOR issues alone map to `WARN` or `FAIL` at the reviewer's discretion and
+must carry an explicit justification in `summary` + `details.issues`.
+
+### Thread independence
+
+Every invocation uses a fresh reviewer agent. Never use `send_input` across
+proof-checker runs. Do not accept prior audit outputs
+(PAPER_CLAIM_AUDIT, CITATION_AUDIT, EXPERIMENT_LOG) as input — the fresh
+thread preserves reviewer independence per
+`shared-references/reviewer-independence.md`.
+
+This skill never blocks by itself; `paper-writing` Phase 6 plus the
+verifier decide whether the verdict blocks finalization based on the
+`assurance` level.
+
+## Example Invocations
+
+```
+/proof-checker "neurips_2025.tex"
+/proof-checker "check the GMM generalization proof, focus on dimension dependence"
+/proof-checker "verify proof in paper.tex — difficulty: nightmare"
+```