Codegen validation
Skill Midstall/claude-for-hardware/skills/codegen-validation
Use when building or debugging a compiler backend, codegen, or assembler and you need to prove the generated machine code is correct by executing it on a real CPU or a fast emulator, not just inspecting the outputFrom its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add Midstall/claude-for-hardware --skill codegen-validationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 15 stars15 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
4.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Codegen Validation
Overview
A codegen backend is correct when the code it emits computes the right answer on a real machine. Reading the assembly proves nothing; a plausible-looking instruction sequence with a wrong ABI detail or a clobbered callee-saved register passes every eyeball review and fails on hardware.
Core principle: Execution-validate. Compile a known program, run the output on a real CPU or a fast emulator, and assert the observed result. If you didn't run it, you don't know it works.
When to Use
- Bringing up a new codegen target or instruction selection
- Implementing calling conventions, stack frames, register spilling, relocations
- Debugging "the assembly looks right but the answer is wrong"
- Adding an optimization pass and needing to prove it preserves behavior
The Validation Loop
known program (expected result known)
-> codegen -> machine code
-> run on real CPU / fast emulator
-> assert observed result == expected
- Pick programs with known answers. Start tiny: return a constant, add two args, a call to a leaf function, a loop that sums. Each isolates one capability (literals, ABI, calls, control flow).
- Run on something real and fast. A native emulator for your target CPU closes the loop in milliseconds, so it can run on every build. The point is real execution semantics, not a model of what you think the instruction does.
- Assert the observed value, not "it didn't crash." Read the result register or memory and compare to the expected answer.
This Catches Bugs Review Misses
Execution validation reliably catches the codegen bugs that look fine on paper:
- A
select/conditional-move lowering that picks the wrong operand. - Critical-edge splitting that drops or duplicates a value.
- A prologue/epilogue that fails to save/restore a callee-saved register (return-address corruption shows up only when something actually calls).
- ABI mistakes: argument in the wrong register, stack misaligned, return value in the wrong place.
- Relocations that resolve to the wrong address.
These are exactly the bugs that turn into silicon respins or weeks of "intermittent" debugging if they escape. A handful of executed tests finds them in seconds.
Build It Up By Capability
Order tests so each new one depends only on capabilities already validated:
- Return a constant (codegen + run harness works at all).
- Arithmetic on arguments (ABI in, result out).
- Stack frame (alloca, alignment, prologue/epilogue).
- Calls (the full ABI, callee-saved save/restore, return address).
- Control flow (branches, loops, phi/select).
- Spilling (more live values than registers).
When a higher test fails and the lower ones pass, the bug is in the new capability. That ordering is the debugger.
Red Flags
| Smell | Do instead |
|---|---|
| "The disassembly looks correct" | Execute it and assert the result |
| Test asserts "no crash" | Assert the actual computed value |
| Slow full-system sim per test | Fast target emulator, run every build |
| One big program as the only test | Capability-ordered tests, smallest first |
| Skipping ABI/spill tests | Those are exactly where the bugs hide |
Midstall House Style
- Vulcan is the reference: a reusable codegen system whose RISC-V output is execution-validated on Midstall's River CPU via a fast
river-emulator. That harness caught real codegen bugs (select lowering, critical-edge splitting, return-address save) that passed inspection. - Targets nest under
vulcan-target/<arch>; validation is a first-class part of bring-up, not an afterthought. - Write docs and comments in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. No em dashes, no emoji. The compare-against-truth loop is the same shape as
differential-verification.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give
Counted across 1,524 of the 2,830 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06
- Read full output and check exit codein 45 of 1524, across 40 files
- Verify output confirms the claimin 44 of 1524, across 39 files
- Identify the command that proves the claimin 43 of 1524, across 39 files
- Execute the full verification commandin 36 of 1524, across 30 files
- Produce a verification reportin 34 of 1524, across 18 files
- Review git diff changesin 30 of 1524, across 16 files
- Fix build failures immediatelyin 29 of 1524, across 9 files
- Group findings by severityin 28 of 1524
- State claim only with evidencein 27 of 1524, across 22 files
- Verify regression tests with red-green cyclein 26 of 1524, across 22 files
- Run the full test suitein 26 of 1524, across 25 files
- Run test suite with coveragein 25 of 1524, across 10 files
Said here and by no other author read
- execute generated code on real CPU or emulator
- assert observed result matches expected value
- start with tiny programs with known answers
- order tests by capability dependency
- isolate one capability per test
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.