# Verify Sequential Statements

> Verify a markdown proof in the order it is written. Use when the task is to check local correctness, theorem applicability, and reasoning gaps statement by statement through a paper-style proof.

- Skill: `frenzymath/verify-sequential-statements` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add frenzymath/verify-sequential-statements`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/frenzymath/verify-sequential-statements/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: frenzymath (https://skillmd.com/u/frenzymath)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/frenzymath/verify-sequential-statements

---


# Verify Sequential Statements

Check each statement and subproof in order and log all local issues.

## Input Contract

Assume:

- `Proof` is markdown text.
- The proof is written in good mathematical order.
- `Statement` contains the target theorem statement and its hypotheses.

Do not split the proof with utility code. Read the markdown in order and use its own structure.

## Procedure

1. Extract the assumptions and hypotheses from `Statement` before checking the proof.
2. Iterate through the statements/subproofs in the order they appear in the markdown.
3. For each item, determine a location key:
   - use the displayed theorem/lemma/claim heading if present,
   - otherwise use a local textual locator such as `proof paragraph 2`.
4. Check local reasoning:
   - Is the inference valid?
   - Are assumptions stated and sufficient?
   - Is each theorem application valid in context?
   - Are there skipped or hand-wavy steps?
5. Pay special attention to assumptions that an object exists or satisfies a property — sometimes such an object has not been constructed, or it exists but has not been proved to satisfy the claimed property.
6. Audit whether the assumptions from `Statement` are actually used in the proof.
7. If some assumptions seem unused, do not assume they are harmless. Reason carefully about whether:
   - the assumption is truly redundant, or
   - the proof is silently omitting a necessary use of it and therefore has a gap or error.
8. Classify findings:
   - `critical_error`: logical contradiction, invalid theorem use, false implication.
   - `gap`: missing derivation, vague justification, unsupported step, or suspiciously unused assumptions whose role is not justified.
9. Also apply the **Hard Prohibitions** defined in the verifier contract (`agents/contracts/verifier.md`, "Hard Prohibitions to enforce"): P1 (citing `problem.md` / `data/<NAME>.md` as a substantive math source), P3 (an unproven conditional premise with no same-paragraph `fact_id` citation), P5 (a vague gesture at a "well-known"/"classical" result without a specific citation), and P6 (a statement that is not self-contained). Do not restate or fork the prohibition wording here — read and apply it from the contract so there is a single source of truth. These prohibitions are strictly additive: they only ever add findings (reject more), never remove them.
10. Keep each checked item in context for the synthesis step. You persist nothing —
   the verifier is stateless; the worker does all writing.

## Output Contract

Produce one record per checked item, kept in context for synthesis:

```json
{
  "location": "Lemma 3",
  "status": "checked",
  "critical_errors": [
    {"location": "Lemma 3", "issue": "Incorrect implication from A to B."}
  ],
  "gaps": [
    {"location": "Lemma 3", "issue": "Missing justification of boundedness."}
  ]
}
```

## Tools

- None — pure reasoning over the proof; findings stay in context.