Protocol-Driven Development: Governing Generated Software Through Invariants and Continuous Evidence

Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction. The de facto workflow decouples the two halves of the problem: first synthesize a program, then attempt to prove it correct. We observe that this sequential pipeline can be both ineffective and inefficient in practice. A program generated without anticipating its proof can be subtly incorrect or structurally difficult to verify, forcing the LLM into brittle repair loops that alternate between patching the code and patching the proof. Inspired by Dijkstra's view that a program and its correctness argument should be developed hand in hand, we propose $P^3$, an LLM-based agentic workflow that first derives a unified program-and-proof plan from the specification, then elaborates the implementation and proof scaffold under this shared plan. To evaluate verified code generation in realistic settings, we further introduce Lean4Commit0, a repository-derived, library-level benchmark built by extracting core APIs from real-world software repositories and translating their requirements, including relational specifications across APIs, into Lean tasks. Using four frontier LLM backends, we evaluate $P^3$ on Verina, AlgoVeri, and our Lean4Commit0 benchmark, where it achieves the highest solve rate in every benchmark--model setting. Compared with the stronger baseline, it improves solve rates by 4.6--11.2 percentage points and reduces per-task API cost by up to roughly 40% and wall-clock time by up to roughly 37% on the difficult subset of each benchmark. A targeted ablation further shows gains of 3.3--8.3 points over implementation-only planning, isolating the benefit of planning the program and proof jointly.

Large language models (LLMs) accelerate software development but often exhibit instability, non-determinism, and weak adherence to development discipline in unconstrained workflows. While test-driven development (TDD) provides a structured Red-Green-Refactor process, existing LLM-based approaches typically use tests as auxiliary inputs rather than enforceable process constraints. We present an AI-native TDD framework that operationalizes classical TDD principles as structured prompt-level and workflow-level governance mechanisms. Extracted principles are formalized in a machine-readable manifesto and distributed across planning, generation, repair, and validation stages within a layered architecture that separates model proposal from deterministic engine authority. The system enforces phase ordering, bounded repair loops, validation gates, and atomic mutation control to improve stability and reproducibility. We describe architecture and discuss encoding software engineering discipline directly into prompt orchestration, which we think offers a promising direction for reliable LLM-assisted development.

AI agents increasingly excel at generating, testing, and refining code. However, they fall short on tasks requiring formal guarantees of full coverage that testing alone cannot provide. Distributed systems are a prime example: properties such as consistency between reads and writes must hold under every possible interleaving of events. Mechanized formal verification can guarantee such correctness, but typically demands months to years of expert effort. As evidence, even SOTA coding agents (Codex with GPT-5.4 and Claude Code with Opus 4.6) succeed on only 2/7 distributed key-value-store specifications. In this paper, we present the first effective approach to addressing this gap, Inductive Deductive Synthesis (IDS), which jointly and incrementally synthesizes implementation and proof, and learns from failed attempts to systematically try promising strategies. Built as an agentic LLM system, IDS achieves 7/7 in about 6.8 hours and $106 per spec on average, roughly 200x faster than expert effort and 17% cheaper than SOTA agents. IDS further incorporates performance feedback into the same loop, yielding implementations up to 3x faster than published verified systems.