Agentic Code Reasoner

This skill implements the "Agentic Code Reasoning" framework, focusing on semi-formal reasoning. It bridges the gap between unstructured reasoning and fully formal verification by using structured reasoning templates that force explicit evidence for every claim.

When to Use

• Patch Equivalence: Verifying if two code patches produce the same semantic outcomes without execution.
• Fault Localization: Identifying the exact lines of buggy code given a failing test description.
• Code Question Answering: Answering nuanced questions about project-specific logic, library semantics, and edge cases.
• Pre-commit Review: Performing deep semantic analysis of changes to prevent regressions.

The Semi-Formal Protocol

To perform agentic code reasoning, follow this iterative protocol to generate a Reasoning Certificate.

Phase 1: Context & Premise Extraction

• Goal: Establish a baseline of facts from the codebase.
• Action: List all relevant function signatures, variable types, constants, and imported library behaviors involved.
• Verification: Use grepsearch and readfile to ensure every premise is grounded in actual code.
• Format:

- [Premise] Function <name> defined in <file> accepts <args> - [Premise] Global constant <MAX_RETRIES> is set to <value>

Phase 2: Symbolic Execution Trace

• Goal: Mentally simulate execution paths for specific scenarios.
• Action:

- Control Flow: Trace the path step-by-step (e.g., "Enter if block"). - Data Flow: Track the state of key variables (e.g., "x is now Tainted"). - Loop Analysis: For loops, explicitly trace "Iteration 0", "Iteration 1", and "Iteration N" to catch boundary errors.

• Micro-Experiments: You MAY use runshellcommand to execute small, isolated scripts (e.g., python3 -c ...) to verify language semantics (e.g., regex behavior, float precision), but NEVER to run the project's own code or tests.
• Interprocedurality: If a function is called, you MUST read its definition and include its trace as a sub-step.
• Format:

1. [Trace Step 1] Entry point <function> called with <params>. 2. [Data Flow] Variable <user_input> is untrusted. 3. [Loop Analysis] Iteration 0: i=0, condition true. Iteration 1: ...

Phase 3: Property Verification & Divergence Analysis

• Goal: Prove or disprove the target property (e.g., "is there a bug?", "are these equivalent?").
• Action:

- For Bugs: Identify divergence points and generate Ranked Predictions (e.g., "Suspect #1: line 45 (80% confidence)"). - For Equivalence: Trace both versions and identify if the side effects or return values differ.

• Self-Correction Loop:

- If a trace contradicts a premise (e.g., "Trace says X is null, Premise says X is safe"), STOP. - Backtrack: Re-verify the premise using readfile or grepsearch. - Refine: Update the premise or the trace with the new finding before proceeding.

Phase 4: Formal Conclusion

• Goal: Provide the final verdict based strictly on the certificate.
• Action: Summarize the findings, referencing specific Trace Steps or Claims from Phase 3.

Workflow Patterns

Refer to the specialized templates in references/reasoning_templates.md for specific tasks:

• Patch Equivalence Verification Template
• Fault Localization (Bug Hunter) Template
• Deep Code Q&A Template

Guidelines

• No Execution: This skill is for reasoning without running the code. Do not suggest running tests as a primary verification method.
• Evidence-First: Never make a claim without a [Premise] or [Trace Step] supporting it.
• Deep Context: If a trace hits a library function whose behavior is unknown, use grepsearch or webfetch to find the documentation or implementation.