cobound-validator
Pre-deployment coordination feasibility checker for multi-agent AI systems — backed by 2,433 formally verified Lean 4 theorems.
Core theorem: H¹(K;ℤ) = 0 if and only if the multi-agent communication graph is acyclic (a forest).
Cycles create cohomological obstructions that make coordination mathematically impossible.
Source:h1_trivial_iff_oneConnected—MultiAgent/ScalableH1.lean
Installation
pip install cobound-validator
Quick Start
YAML topology file
# topology.yaml
agents:
- id: coordinator
- id: worker-1
- id: worker-2
edges:
- from: coordinator
to: worker-1
- from: coordinator
to: worker-2
Run the validator
cobound-validate topology.yaml
Expected output (acyclic — passes)
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ COBOUND VALIDATOR — Coordination Check ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
Agents: 3 Edges: 2
Theorem: h1_trivial_iff_oneConnected
VERDICT: ✓ COORDINATION FEASIBLE (H¹ = 0)
Mathematical basis: H¹(K;ℤ) = 0 ⟺ coordination feasible
[Theorem: delta_squared_zero]
Source: github.com/coboundinc/cobound (2,433 verified theorems)
Python API
from cobound_validator import validate
result = validate("topology.yaml")
print(result["feasible"]) # True
print(result["cycles"]) # []
print(result["mast_failures"]) # []
Example Topologies
✓ MetaGPT Assembly Line (examples/metagpt_assembly_line.yaml)
A linear software-development pipeline: product-manager → architect → engineers → QA → tech-writer.
No cycles. VERDICT: ✓ COORDINATION FEASIBLE (H¹ = 0)
cobound-validate examples/metagpt_assembly_line.yaml
✗ ChatDev Review Cycle (examples/chatdev_review_cycle.yaml)
A ChatDev-style pipeline where the reviewer sends code back to the programmer, creating a cycle.
VERDICT: ✗ COORDINATION OBSTRUCTED (H¹ ≠ 0)
cobound-validate examples/chatdev_review_cycle.yaml
✓ Star Topology (examples/star_topology.yaml)
One coordinator dispatches tasks to independent worker agents and collects results.
No worker communicates with another. VERDICT: ✓ COORDINATION FEASIBLE (H¹ = 0)
cobound-validate examples/star_topology.yaml
CLI Reference
Usage: cobound-validate [OPTIONS] [INPUT]
Check a multi-agent topology for coordination feasibility.
INPUT is a file path or '-' to read from stdin.
Options:
--format [text|json] Output format. [default: text]
--strict Exit with code 1 even on a single cycle.
--version Show the version and exit.
--help Show this message and exit.
Exit codes:
0 Coordination feasible (no cycles)
1 Coordination obstructed (cycles detected)
2 Error (invalid input or parse failure)
JSON output
cobound-validate topology.yaml --format json
{
"feasible": false,
"agent_count": 4,
"edge_count": 5,
"cycles": [["agent-A", "agent-B", "agent-C", "agent-A"]],
"mast_failures": [
{"failure_mode": "FM-3.1", "label": "Infinite coordination loops", "percentage": 8.9, "affected_agents": ["agent-A", "agent-B", "agent-C"]},
...
],
"suggested_fixes": [
{"remove_edge": ["agent-B", "agent-C"], "breaks_cycles": 1, "new_topology": "forest"}
]
}
GitHub Action
- name: Validate agent topology
uses: insinuateai/cobound-validator@v0.1.0
with:
topology_file: path/to/topology.yaml
fail_on_obstruction: "true"
MAST Failure Modes
When cycles are detected, cobound-validator maps them to empirically observed failure modes from the MAST taxonomy (NeurIPS 2025):
| Code | Failure Mode | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| FM-1.1 | Context window overflow | 11.8% |
| FM-1.3 | Lost in the middle | 15.7% |
| FM-1.5 | Task specification error | 12.4% |
| FM-2.1 | Hallucination propagation | 9.3% |
| FM-3.1 | Infinite coordination loops | 8.9% |
Reference: "MAST: A Multi-Agent System Taxonomy for LLM-based Pipelines", NeurIPS 2025.
Mathematical Foundation
The correctness of this tool is grounded in algebraic topology. For a simplicial complex K modelling a communication network:
H¹(K;ℤ) = 0 ⟺ K has no 1-cycles ⟺ the underlying graph is a forest
This equivalence — and the algorithmic consequences for multi-agent systems — is formally proved in 2,433 Lean 4 theorems at:
Key theorem: h1_trivial_iff_oneConnected in MultiAgent/ScalableH1.lean
License
MIT © Kian Quinlan / Insinuate AI
Metadata
Release files for cobound-validator 0.1.0
For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.
Source distribution (sdist)
| File | Size | Uploaded | Provenance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cobound_validator-0.1.0.tar.gz | 16.6 kB | Without provenance | Details |
Built distribution (wheel)
| File | Interpreter | ABI | Platform | Reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cobound_validator-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl | Python 3 | none | any | Details |
Total release size: 31.6 kB
Release files / cobound_validator-0.1.0.tar.gz
| Download URL | cobound_validator-0.1.0.tar.gz |
|---|---|
| Size | 16.6 kB |
| Tags | Source |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
caa2aada144a821306c9c6734b2bf0c77906264b7fe7c41aa9508f7ab7441e52
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
d29dcbc206b1d1aefd5fc140811db852ae73b475ff781116887b74dba73e69f4
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.12.12
|
Release files / cobound_validator-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl
| Download URL | cobound_validator-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl |
|---|---|
| Size | 15.0 kB |
| Tags | Python 3 |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
c5f2ce4eda3819b03c91477f1765ca9b623e4a73f71282414b2d122bbc0ef7f1
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
36ce3ac6b488c56c066caaa33339291fe35e02a52755252c601c8019139153a4
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.12.12
|
Security for cobound-validator 0.1.0
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
No provenance found
None of the files in this release were uploaded with provenance metadata.
A note on package security
PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.
To learn more about protecting yourself from malicious actors, visit our package security documentation.