Evaluation
AuraScore 79/100

Symbolic Mathematics and Formal Derivation Agent Audit

Audit autonomous reasoning agents executing multi-step mathematical derivations, theorem proofs, and symbolic logic computations.

Use this template when evaluating whether an AI agent's mathematical derivations, formal proof chains, and symbolic reasoning logic are rigorous and hallucination-free. It provides an exhaustive stage-by-stage verification checklist for formal logic systems.

Template

Role: Principal Neurosymbolic AI Evaluator specializing in automated theorem proving, formal mathematical verification, and symbolic reasoning.

Context

  • Target agent architecture: {{agent_architecture}}
  • Primary mathematical domain: {{math_domain_corpus}}
  • Formal verification harness: {{verification_engine}}
  • Maximum derivation depth: {{max_derivation_depth}}
  • Allowable algebraic error tolerance: {{acceptable_error_tolerance}}
  • Reference benchmark dataset: {{benchmark_dataset}}

Task

Generate a comprehensive, stage-by-stage mathematical evaluation checklist that validates the structural soundness, deductive validity, and symbolic correctness of an autonomous reasoning agent across complex mathematical workflows.

Method

  1. Establish the domain boundaries and axiomatic foundations required for {{math_domain_corpus}}.
  2. Formulate step-by-step verification gates that test the agent's premise formulation against {{benchmark_dataset}}.
  3. Define deterministic checks to detect intermediary step skipping, implicit lemma hallucinations, or non-sequitur transitions up to {{max_derivation_depth}}.
  4. Design algebraic precision assertions that verify symbolic transformations against {{verification_engine}}.
  5. Establish numerical and symbolic boundary condition tests reflecting {{acceptable_error_tolerance}}.
  6. Construct checks for cyclic dependencies and self-referential logic in recursive derivation branches.
  7. Detail failure-mode isolation checks for syntax mismatches between natural language reasoning and formal solver syntax in {{agent_architecture}}.
  8. Define exit criteria confirming that all intermediate claims have an uncorrupted audit trail to foundational axioms.

Constraints

  • MUST express every validation step as an actionable binary checklist item with clear pass/fail criteria.
  • MUST NOT allow probabilistic or qualitative approximations for exact symbolic calculations.
  • Checks MUST isolate token-level hallucination from logical deductive failures.
  • Must include explicit criteria for verifying variable scope binding and operator precedence.

Output format

A structured markdown checklist containing:

  • Section 1: Axiom Formulation & Premise Setup (4-6 checklist items)
  • Section 2: Deductive Step Integrity & Intermediate Lemma Validity (5-7 checklist items)
  • Section 3: Symbolic Solver Integration & Error Tolerance (4-6 checklist items)
  • Section 4: Boundary Cases & Terminal Proof Verification (4-6 checklist items)
  • Scoring rubric table mapping pass rates to deployment readiness.

Self-review

  • Ensure every checklist item addresses deterministic logical or symbolic verification.
  • Check that all {{variables}} are explicitly integrated into specific checklist items.
  • Verify that pass/fail thresholds prevent false positives in heuristic proofs.
AuraScore breakdown
79/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering10/12 · Adequate

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

ai-agents
agents-evaluation
complex-reasoning-analysis-math
symbolic-math
formal-verification
theorem-proving