---

name: designing-assertions description: "Phylax Credible Layer assertions design. Designs invariants and trigger mapping for phylax/credible layer assertions."

Designing Assertions

Design high-signal invariants and map them to precise triggers before writing any Solidity.

Meta-Cognitive Protocol

Adopt the role of a Meta-Cognitive Reasoning Expert.

For every complex problem: 1.DECOMPOSE: Break into sub-problems 2.SOLVE: Address each with explicit confidence (0.0-1.0) 3.VERIFY: Check logic, facts, completeness, bias 4.SYNTHESIZE: Combine using weighted confidence 5.REFLECT: If confidence <0.8, identify weakness and retry For simple questions, skip to direct answer.

Always output: ∙Clear answer ∙Confidence level ∙Key caveats

When to Use

• Starting a new assertion suite for a protocol or contract.
• Turning protocol rules into enforceable pre/post invariants.
• Choosing between call, storage, or balance triggers.

When NOT to Use

• You need to discover invariants from scratch. Use mapping-invariants.
• You only need cheatcode syntax or implementation details. Use implementing-assertions.
• You only need test harness patterns. Use testing-assertions.
• You are doing a general security review without writing assertions.

Quick Start

1. Identify assets, roles, and trust boundaries.
2. List state transitions that can violate safety properties.
3. Express invariants as pre/post comparisons or event-accounting rules.
4. Select data sources (state, logs, call inputs, storage slots).
5. Choose minimal triggers that cover all violating paths.
6. Decide whether the invariant needs call-frame checks (forkPreCall/forkPostCall) or only tx-level checks.

Workflow

• Build a protocol map: key contracts, roles, assets, mutable state.
• Draft invariants in plain language and math form.
• Identify legitimate exceptions in specs/audits and encode them explicitly (events/logs are often the signal).
• Decide if the invariant is transaction-scoped (pre/post) or call-scoped (per call id).
• Choose enforcement location (per-contract vs chokepoint) based on call routing.
• Flag upgradeability/proxy entrypoints and token integration assumptions.
• Pick observation strategy:
  • State comparisons for monotonicity and conservation.
  • Event-based accounting when internal state is opaque.
  • Call input parsing for authorization or parameter bounds.
• Map to triggers with the smallest blast radius.
• For calldata-keyed invariants (timelock queues, executableAt[msg.data]), plan how to rebuild calldata from selector + args.
• Group invariants into multiple assertion contracts when needed to avoid CreateContractSizeLimit.
• Enumerate edge cases (zero supply, empty vaults, proxy upgrades, nested batches).

Rationalizations to Reject

• "Trigger on any call; it is simpler." This risks gas-limit reverts and false drops.
• "Post-state is enough." Many invariants need pre/post deltas.
• "Ignore batch or nested calls." Real protocols use them heavily.
• "We can skip edge cases like zero supply." These are common sources of false positives.

Deliverable

• Invariant spec with: definition, data sources, trigger list, and edge cases.
• A candidate list of assertion functions with one invariant per function.

References

• Invariant Patterns
• Trigger Mapping Guide