A
licenseB
qualityA
maintenanceEnables coding agents to develop on one machine and verify results on another, using branch-bound runbooks, isolated checkpoints, and structured receipts to guide repair iterations.
10
50 npm
MIT
Proofrail
by armsteadj1
Related Servers
Alternatives to Proofrail
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides AI coding agents with reliable root-cause diagnosis and minimal, high-confidence fixes for failing tests.31MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA multi-agent system that autonomously analyzes code, proves bugs with formal certificates, generates repairs, and validates patches, all over the Model Context Protocol.7 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to keep persistent, verifiable memory of a codebase, including the reasons behind code, prior rejected approaches, and invariants, anchored to the code and carried along as the code moves.-
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to verify technical claims against supplied evidence, identify unsupported assumptions and contradictions, and recommend the smallest next check before acting.5MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceGives AI coding agents a closed-loop verification cycle for visual, audio, and video output, with enforcement hooks that make verification mandatory.Apache 2.0
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation4/5
The three tools share a common domain (proof verification) and the verify/focus tools both produce repair packets, but their purposes are distinct: verify scores all claims, focus returns a single repair packet, and recheck re-runs for a specific claim. The descriptions clarify the differences, though the overlap between verify and focus could cause occasional misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the same pattern: proofrail_<verb> (verify, focus, recheck). The naming is consistent snake_case with a clear prefix, making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is a well-scoped number for this domain—each tool serves a distinct role in the verification workflow (overall scoring, targeted repair, and incremental re-checking). No unnecessary bloat, and all three earn their place.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core lifecycle: verify for full evaluation, focus for repair guidance, and recheck for confirming fixes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for updating the manifest or listing all claims), but agents can work around them using the existing tools and the repair packet details.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues