Problem Developers build software from natural-language requirements, but after a code change it can be difficult to determine whether every requirement was actually satisfied. Traditional code review primarily examines implementation quality and can miss requirements, edge cases, security constraints, business rules, and regressions. This creates manual verification effort and allows incorrect implementations to reach production. Solution CodeProof is a Requirement-to-Code Verifier that connects a developer's original requirements directly to the implementation and verification evidence. The developer provides requirements and a software repository. CodeProof converts each requirement into a structured, testable Intent Contract, traces the requirement through relevant source code, generates an appropriate verification test when possible, executes the test, collects evidence, and produces a requirement-level verdict. Each requirement receives one of three outcomes: PROVEN — sufficient evidence confirms the requirement. FAILED — verification demonstrates that the requirement is violated. UNPROVEN — the requirement may be satisfied, but sufficient evidence is unavailable. For example, a requirement such as “password reset tokens must expire after 15 minutes” can be traced to the relevant implementation, tested, executed, and reported with its actual verification result rather than simply being judged by code inspection. Target Users CodeProof is designed for software developers, QA engineers, engineering teams, and developers using AI coding assistants who need a practical way to verify that implemented changes actually satisfy their requirements. How users interact with it A user provides a repository and one or more requirements through the web interface. CodeProof processes the requirements, analyzes the repository, generates verification tests, executes them, gathers evidence, and presents a concise report showing the status of each requirement. What makes it different CodeProof focuses on the connection between requirement → implementation → test → execution evidence → verdict, rather than only reviewing source code. It also distinguishes a confirmed failure from a requirement that simply cannot yet be proven, avoiding the assumption that “no failure found” automatically means the requirement is satisfied. The goal is to make software changes more traceable and evidence-driven while reducing manual requirement checking, missed requirements, hidden regressions, and rework.
Category tags: