math-olympiad
Solve competition math problems (IMO, Putnam, USAMO, AIME) with adversarial
Best for Math competition preparationWorks with GitHub
⌘source
- author
@anthropics- language
- Python
★17kstars
2.1kforks
Apr 21, 2026
✦overview.md
Key Features
- ·Adversarial verification catches errors self-verification misses
- ·Uses pure reasoning without external tools
- ·Produces clean PDF output when LaTeX is available
- ·Outputs calibrated confidence levels
- ·Triggers on competition math keywords like IMO, Putnam, USAMO
Use Cases
- →Solving competition math problems from IMO, Putnam, USAMO, or AIME
- →Proving olympiad inequalities
- →Verifying competition proofs
- →Finding counterexamples to mathematical claims
- →Checking correctness of competition math proofs
Best for
- ✓Math competition preparation
- ✓Proof verification workflows
- ✓Mathematical research assistance
Not ideal for
- !General mathematics education
- !Computational mathematics
- !Non-competition math problems
FAQs
name
math-olympiad
description
Solve competition math problems (IMO, Putnam, USAMO, AIME) with adversarial verification that catches the errors self-verification misses. Activates when asked to 'solve this IMO problem', 'prove this olympiad inequality', 'verify this competition proof', 'find a counterexample', 'is this proof correct', or for any problem with 'IMO', 'Putnam', 'USAMO', 'olympiad', or 'competition math' in it. Uses pure reasoning (no tools) — then a fresh-context adversarial verifier attacks the proof using specific failure patterns, not generic 'check logic'. Outputs calibrated confidence — will say 'no confident solution' rather than bluff. If LaTeX is available, produces a clean PDF after verification passes.
version:0.1.0
Math Olympiad Solver
The five things that change outcomes
- Strip thinking before verifying — a verifier that sees the reasoning is biased toward agreement. Fresh context, cleaned proof only.
- "Does this prove RH?" — if your theorem's specialization to ζ is a famous open problem, you have a gap. Most reliable red flag.
- Short proof → extract the general lemma — try 2×2 counterexamples. If general form is false, find what's special about THIS instance.
- Same gap twice → step back — the case split may be obscuring a unified argument. Three lines sometimes does what twelve pages couldn't.
- Say "no confident solution" — wrong-and-confident is worse than honest abstain.
Tool policy: Solvers and verifiers use THINKING ONLY in the tight-budget workflow. Competition math is reasoning. Computation is for deep mode (§6c), and even then bounded — a recurrence that's doubly-exponential can't be computed past n~30, work mod 2^m instead.
When to use which approach
$install
1-click copynpx skills add anthropics/claude-plugins-official --skill math-olympiadSafety assessment
★
Clarity score
How clear and easy to understand the SKILL.md instructions are, rated from 1 to 5.
3/ 5
goodMostly clear, but there are still a few confusing or poorly structured parts.
◎
Actionability score
How directly an agent can act on the SKILL.md instructions, rated from 1 to 5.
3/ 5
mediumPartially actionable with several concrete steps, but still missing important details.