---

name: smart-contract-formal-verification description: 'Foundry and Soroban formal invariant verification register: state transition rules, boundary invariant properties, and symbolic execution checks.' category: engineering risk: safe source: self source_type: self date_added: "2026-10-01" author: Ranjeet2063 tags: [formal-verification, invariants, foundry, soroban, security, math] tools: [] source_repo: Ranjeet2063/agentic-awesome-skills

Smart Contract Formal Verification

What it is: Applies rigorous mathematical invariant proofs, symbolic execution engines, and property-based fuzz tests to verify smart contract safety.

Overview

Provides a standardized, auditable framework and data model for Smart Contract Formal Verification operations across distributed engineering and decentralized application systems.

When to Use This Skill

• When formalizing architectural contracts, security invariants, or operational limits for Smart Contract Formal Verification.
• When cross-functional review is required between protocol developers, smart contract auditors, and AI engineering agents.
• When generating reproducible CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, and Notion property registers for tracking compliance.

How It Works

1. Define the parameters, thresholds, and identity bindings required for the target operational register.
2. Select appropriate boundary enforcement values from validated enum select sets.
3. Export standardized artifacts (CSV table, SQL DDL, JSON Schema) to integrate into validation CI pipelines.

Field Reference

#	Field Name	Type	SQL Type	JSON Schema Type	Notion Property Type	Example Value
1	Formal Spec ID	id	SERIAL PRIMARY KEY	integer	Text	SPEC-001
2	Target Contract Module	text	VARCHAR(64)	string	Text	vault_liquidity_engine
3	State Transition Property	text	VARCHAR(128)	string	Text	Total Assets Equals Sum of Shares
4	Verification Method	select	VARCHAR(64)	string	Select	Foundry Invariant Fuzzing
5	Fuzz Runs Count	number	INTEGER	number	Number	100000
6	Symbolic Execution Engine	select	VARCHAR(32)	string	Select	Certora Prover
7	Counterexample Discovered	select	VARCHAR(16)	string	Select	No
8	Mathematical Theorem Proved	select	VARCHAR(16)	string	Select	Yes
9	Invariant Violation Tolerance	currency	NUMERIC(14,2)	number	Number	0.00
10	Formal Verification Status	select	VARCHAR(32)	string	Select	Formally Verified
11	Proof Generation Date	date	DATE	string, format: date	Date	2026-10-01

Select Options

Verification Method

Foundry Invariant Fuzzing | Halmos Symbolic Execution | Certora Rule Prover | SMT Solver

Symbolic Execution Engine

Certora Prover | Halmos | Z3 SMT | None (Fuzzing Only)

Counterexample Discovered

Yes | No

Mathematical Theorem Proved

Yes | No

Formal Verification Status

Formally Verified | Violations Found | Proof In Progress

Relations

• Audit Reference -> links to the formal review documentation or test repository.
• Target Architecture -> links to the deployed contract or autonomous agent runtime component.

Examples

Prompt

How do I configure and track Smart Contract Formal Verification for our production environment?

Recommended Next Step

Generate the unified field schema, SQL DDL migration, and JSON validation schema to register into your system catalog.

Workflow: Define criteria -> Run automated verification -> Record baseline -> Monitor invariants.

Best Practices

• Enforce strict typing on numerical bounds and currency amounts; avoid unstructured free-text fields for critical states.
• Re-run validation test suites on every state-altering commit or parameter change.
• Keep example data synthetic and isolated from production cryptographic keys or private endpoints.

Limitations

• Provides architectural specifications, data models, and verification schemas; does not execute direct transaction signing without authorized external tooling.
• Requires network connectivity and valid RPC credentials when querying on-chain states.

Security & Safety Notes

• All parameters declare risk: safe. No unauthorized state modification or privileged credential access is performed.
• Use synthetic dummy keys and mock addresses in test suites and local verification scripts.

Common Pitfalls

• Problem: Mismatched decimal precision between contract runtime and database register. Solution: Always verify decimals using the explicit field mapping in this reference.
• Problem: Missing authorization checks prior to state update. Solution: Cross-validate against the Security Audit register before deployment.

Related Skills

• @soroban-contract-audit - provides the security checklist and vulnerability categorization.
• @web3-rate-limiting-circuit-breaker - provides operational guardrails and threshold breakers.
• @cross-chain-relayer-audit - covers message hashes, nonces and quorum proofs.

Reusable Prompt

I want to establish a verified Smart Contract Formal Verification register for our production protocol.
Guide me through the required field parameters and output the corresponding SQL DDL and JSON Schema.