Proofs Promptly: Proof-Oriented Programming with AI Agents (Experience Report)

The widespread adoption of AI-assisted coding is directly proportional to an increase in software bugs; can AI-assisted formal verification help reduce bugs at a comparable scale? In this experience report we give an anecdotal account of AI agents, equipped with a CLI and a proof assistant, producing thousands of lines of machine-checked code. We detail our experience across different proof-engineering tasks: implementing verified data structures for a standard library, translating unverified code into a formal language while inferring its specification, and porting and refactoring existing proofs to new frameworks. We present the techniques that made agentic proof-oriented programming (PoP) effective---or ineffective---and characterize the role of the human expert, whose contribution reduces to providing natural-language problem descriptions, reviewing auto-generated specifications, and occasionally supplying a key invariant. Our findings suggest that this division of labor provides substantial leverage to the human expert in the loop: three experts, over the course of two weeks, completed case studies whose manual proof-engineering cost we estimate at roughly half a year.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Published
2026-08-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3828709
Primary Topic
Logic, programming, and type systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Proofs Promptly: Proof-Oriented Programming with AI Agents (Experience Report)

Gabriel Ebner, Matthai Philipose, Tahina Ramananandro, Eleftherios Ioannidis et al.
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Logic, programming, and type systems
article

Proofs Promptly: Proof-Oriented Programming with AI Agents (Experience Report)

Gabriel Ebner, Matthai Philipose, Tahina Ramananandro, Eleftherios Ioannidis, Nikhil Swamy
article en

Abstract

The widespread adoption of AI-assisted coding is directly proportional to an increase in software bugs; can AI-assisted formal verification help reduce bugs at a comparable scale? In this experience report we give an anecdotal account of AI agents, equipped with a CLI and a proof assistant, producing thousands of lines of machine-checked code. We detail our experience across different proof-engineering tasks: implementing verified data structures for a standard library, translating unverified code into a formal language while inferring its specification, and porting and refactoring existing proofs to new frameworks. We present the techniques that made agentic proof-oriented programming (PoP) effective---or ineffective---and characterize the role of the human expert, whose contribution reduces to providing natural-language problem descriptions, reviewing auto-generated specifications, and occasionally supplying a key invariant. Our findings suggest that this division of labor provides substantial leverage to the human expert in the loop: three experts, over the course of two weeks, completed case studies whose manual proof-engineering cost we estimate at roughly half a year.

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesVol. 10(ICFP)
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Logic, programming, and type systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.