Proof Portal

Projects

jsonparser

ProbeLabs23 findings · 123 requirements
Showing the current git stateNo audit has been synced for this project yet — verification results (proof status, coverage, solver signals) appear once an audit is published.proof-demod79405e
All requirements
RequirementSYS-REQ-059SystemApproved

When ParseInt receives an integer token that is exactly one beyond the int64 range (9223372036854775808 for max+1, -9223372036854775809 for min-1), the parser shall return OverflowIntegerError.

1 open known issue affect this requirement (worst severity: High). Automated checks pass.
PriorityshallTypeguaranteeCategoryfunctionalComponentparserAssuranceEFindingsHighworst open

Specification

The requirement exactly as authored — its complete prose text and, where present, the formal FRETish sentence it compiles to.

Description

When ParseInt receives an integer token that is exactly one beyond the int64 range (9223372036854775808 for max+1, -9223372036854775809 for min-1), the parser shall return OverflowIntegerError.

FRETish formula
the parser shall always satisfy !raw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_one | returns_overflow_at_int64_max_plus_one
View full formal model

Rationale & tags

Why this requirement exists, and how it is categorised.

The boundary between valid and overflow is where off-by-one errors hide. The max+1 and min-1 cases must be specified explicitly.

parseintboundaryoverflow

Verification & provenance

How this requirement was checked: the review trail, edit history, and the machine-analysis status terms (each ⓘ explains what it means).

Assurance levelE
Formalizationvalid
Strategyfretish

Review

Status
approved
Reviewer
Buger · lead_engineer
Reviewed
Aug 20, 2026, 13:11 UTC
Spec-conformance reviewed (agent:claude:spec-conformance); approved on owner authorization.

History

Created
Apr 14, 2026, 18:00 UTC · Claude · AI agent
Modified
Aug 20, 2026, 13:11 UTC · Buger

Change history

Every recorded revision of this requirement's source file — newest first, each with its commit message and the diff for that change.

Review history

Human and AI-agent approvals of this requirement — the 'why was this approved' lineage, each with the reviewer's justification and the code it cites.

  1. Claude:spec Conformance · AI agentApprovedSpec conformanceAug 20, 2026 · last monthREVIEW-41

    The overflow-checked slow path (bytes.go:59-80) is sound and would return overflow for out-of-range magnitudes, but its gate is 'if l-i < 20' (bytes.go:40) instead of '< 19', so 19-digit literals take the unchecked fast path. max+1 '9223372036854775808' (19 digits) is therefore accumulated with plain int64 arithmetic that wraps to a negative value and returns (v,true,false) with a nil error rather than OverflowIntegerError, and min-1 '-9223372036854775809' (l-i=19) similarly wraps — directly violating the requirement. This is the open, high-severity KI-7 (CWE-190); TestParseIntOverflowBoundary would fail against this tree. Implemented with sound intent but verification honestly fails on the tracked defect.

    Cited code (4)

Open known issues

Findings currently open against this requirement — issues its verification surfaced that are not resolved yet. Each links to the full finding.

Obligations

What this requirement must witness to be considered satisfied — the required evidence, and the tests that discharge each one.

The tests that discharge each obligation need a synced audit

The evidence matrix behind each obligation comes from the audit index, which is produced by running an audit — not read from git. Nothing here means unknown — not that the requirement has no obligations.

Formula evidence

The formal formula behind this requirement, the variables it is written over, and the tests that exercise it (each term is explained inline).

FRETish formula

the parser shall always satisfy !raw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_one | returns_overflow_at_int64_max_plus_one

Variables

NameTypeDirectionDescription
raw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_oneTrue when ParseInt receives an integer token exactly one beyond the int64 range (9223372036854775808 or -9223372036854775809).
returns_overflow_at_int64_max_plus_oneTrue when ParseInt returns OverflowIntegerError for an integer token exactly one beyond the int64 range.

Witnesses· 3 scenarios total

  • TestMCDC_SYS_REQ_059_Row1_TriggerFalse
    exercises 1 condition scenario
  • TestMCDC_SYS_REQ_059_Row2_InvariantViolation
    exercises 1 condition scenario
  • TestMCDC_SYS_REQ_059_Row3_OverflowError
    exercises 1 condition scenario

MC/DC truth table· 3 rows

Each row assigns the formula's conditions (T/F) and shows the Result— the formula's value for that input row, not a test pass/fail. A row proves a condition when flipping only that condition flips the outcome. The test that covers each row is linked.

Covereda test exercises this rowExempteda reviewed mcdc:ignoreNo-actionfalse-result row satisfied by designUncoveredneeds a covering test
#raw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_onereturns_overflow_at_int64_max_plus_oneResultProvesCovering test
1FFTraw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_one
2TFFraw_int_token_is_at_int64_max_plus_one
3TTTreturns_overflow_at_int64_max_plus_one

Its place

How this requirement connects — what proves it, what it affects, and what it rests on. Authored links only here; automatically derived links come from the audit index.

Loading graph…

Trace evidence

The concrete artifacts linked to this requirement — implementing code, verifying tests, documents, and the findings raised against it.

Impact

Blast radius — authored trace links only (automatically derived links come from the audit index and aren't shown here).

If you change this

Requirements
0
Files
1
Tests
2
At-risk contracts
0

Files to re-check (1)

  • parser.goparser.go

Tests to re-run (2)

  • deep_spec_test.godeep_spec_test.go
  • mcdc_spec_witnesses_test.gomcdc_spec_witnesses_test.go

What this rests on

Discussions

Discuss this with the proof team. Nothing changes in your audit automatically — you open a request and a staff member records any outcome inside the thread.

Sign in to discuss this with the proof team.Sign in