Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
physverify

physverify

by rcgiri-physics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to physverify

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • spec-lantern

      ikenyal
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables turning the claims made in code comments into executable correctness properties, running them in isolated rootless Podman working copies, and comparing locked predictions against actual results to produce reports of confirmed bugs with counterexamples.
      MIT

    • test-unslop

      fikrifirmanf
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to deterministically audit test files for fake or fragile tests (no assertions, tautological or swallowed assertions, focused/skipped tests, fixed sleeps, real network calls) and to run the project's actual test runner, treating an exit-0 run with zero tests as a failure and flagging changed source files that lack test coverage.
      51 npm
      MIT

    • testrun-mcp

      0xmortuex
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to run a project's pytest, unittest, jest, or vitest suites and get back compact structured results with trimmed tracebacks, collection errors kept apart from real failures, and the slowest tests. Agents can then re-run just the failures, expand one failure with local variables, repeatedly execute a single test to judge flakiness, and inspect Python coverage gaps, all under a hard timeout that kills the whole process tree.
      7
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    run_checks is a broad verification sweep over discovered verify_*.py specs, while confirm_claim adjudicates a single suspected defect from a CLAIM file and writes to a ledger, so purposes are mostly separable. They share the underlying checks() machinery and both report check statuses, which could cause some hesitation about which to call for a one-off verification.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (run_checks, confirm_claim) and the verbs accurately reflect their actions. No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only two tools for what is a fairly rich verification domain, which feels thin even for a focused CLI wrapper. The pair covers the batch and single-claim workflows but leaves little room for auxiliary operations.

    Completeness3/5

    Core lifecycle of run-specs-then-confirm-defect is present, but the surface is missing useful operations such as listing/discovering available spec or claim files, reading the accumulated ledger, or validating spec syntax before execution. The write-only ledger is a dead end for an agent.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources