Skip to content
Back to skills

Math Frml Agen Patt

ASecurity

Use when evaluating or absorbing ideas from math-formalization agents such as MathCode into Hermes workflows. Activate when a task involves theorem proving, reusable theorem/axiom stores, subgoal decomposition, proof planning, Lean feedback loops, or tool/skill/plugin split for math work.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 5 views
  • Added September 9, 2026
developmentrustgodebuggingbackendsecurity

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 9, 2026

npx -y skills add Undermybelt/hermes-skills --skill math-frml-agen-patt --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Math Frml Agen Patt?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Math Frml Agen Patt
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/undermybelt-math-frml-agen-patt/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/undermybelt-math-frml-agen-patt)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: math-frml-agen-patt
description: >
  Use when evaluating or absorbing ideas from math-formalization agents such as MathCode into Hermes workflows. Activate when a task involves theorem proving, reusable theorem/axiom stores, subgoal decomposition, proof planning, Lean feedback loops, or tool/skill/plugin split for math work.
tags:
  - math
  - theorem-proving
  - lean
  - agent-patterns
  - planning
version: 1
---

Goal
- Reuse the transferable orchestration ideas from math-formalization agents without inheriting their whole runtime or trusting their bootstrap blindly.

Use this when
- A user shares a theorem-proving / Lean / formalization agent repo and wants the useful parts integrated.
- You need a structured way to plan proofs, decompose subgoals, or store reusable formal results.
- You want Hermes to reason about math workflows with explicit reusable artifacts.

Do not use this when
- The task is merely to install or run a third-party math agent; do security review first.
- The task is ordinary coding/debugging with no formalization workflow.

Core patterns to adopt
1. Tree of Subgoals
   - For hard proofs, decompose into explicit subgoals.
   - Prefer independent subgoals that can be checked separately.
   - Treat subgoal proof status as first-class state.
2. Guide of Plans
   - Generate multiple proof plans or attack strategies before committing.
   - Keep the planner distinct from the prover/executor.
3. Theorem Library
   - Reusable proved statements should be stored in a durable, queryable artifact.
   - Prefer canonical naming and append-only or auditable updates.
4. Axiom Library
   - Temporary assumptions must be explicit, named, and reviewable.
   - Never let assumptions hide inside free-form chat.
5. Tools / Skills / Plugins split
   - Skills encode method.
   - Tools perform deterministic checks/search/stats.
   - Plugins/integrations add optional surface area; do not bloat the core.
6. Structured feedback loop
   - Compiler/LSP/checker diagnostics should feed repair loops in structured form, not only raw stderr.

Hermes adaptation
- Do not install the external runtime unless the user asked for it.
- Absorb workflow ideas into skills and repo artifacts first.
- For theorem-style tasks:
  1. write the target statement
  2. list candidate plans
  3. decompose subgoals
  4. mark assumptions explicitly
  5. run deterministic checks
  6. store proved reusable lemmas/results in a durable artifact if the project has a formal store

Recommended artifacts
- `DEBUG.md` or `PROOF.md` for evidence trail
- `docs/proof-plans/` for larger proof strategies
- project-local theorem/axiom stores when the repo already has them

Adoption filter
- Keep:
  - subgoal trees
  - reusable theorem/axiom stores
  - multi-plan search
  - structured tool/skill split
- Reject or weaken:
  - bootstrap installers as authority
  - hidden assumptions inside prompts
  - unconditional dependence on one vendor CLI/backend

Output pattern
- State what was absorbed: planning, subgoaling, theorem store, axiom discipline, or tool split.
- Name any explicit artifact or skill updated.

Pitfalls
- Do not treat assumptions as proved facts.
- Do not mix planner output and proof output without marking status.
- Do not let theorem libraries become unreviewed dump files.
- Do not force installation when workflow absorption is enough.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.