Tutorial: tactic writing in Lean #
This is a tutorial for getting started writing your own tactics in Lean. It is intended for an audience that does not necessarily have experience working with monads in a functional programming langauge (e.g. most mathematicians).
Other useful resources while learning to write tactics include:
 Rob Lewis' video tutorials on metaprogramming in Lean from Lean for the Curious Mathematician 2020
 Chapter 7 of the Hitchhiker's guide to Logical Verification
 the original paper about metaprogramming Lean A Metaprogramming Framework for Formal Verification
Monadology #
Tactics are programs that act on the proof state. But Lean is a functional programming language. It means all you can do is define and evaluate functions. Each function takes input with a predefined type, and gives output with a predefined type. It seems to prevent having a global state (like the current assumptions and goals), and having output type depending on the input value (for instance a tactic can succeed or fail), or outputting messages. These issues are resolved by three layers of tricks (the following brief descriptions will hopefully become clearer later):
 using complicated types carrying the proof state and tactic running state around
 using clever notations that hide most of the complicated type bookkeeping and composition
 using interactive tactic blocks, introduced by
by
or delimited bybegin
/end
The first two points are collectively known as monadic programming (of course there is a more precise definition, but we will try to ignore it).
The type of a function that can inspect the proof state, modify it, and
potentially return something of type α
(or fail) is called tactic α
. In
particular tactic unit
is only about manipulating proof state, without
trying to return anything (technically it will return something of type
unit
, which is the type having exactly one term, denoted by ()
).
Such functions are either called by other
tacticsthose are typically in the tactic
namespaceor called
interactively by users inside tactic blocksthose must be in the
tactic.interactive
namespace (this is not quite necessary for very simple
tactics, but weird things will happen in general when ignoring this rule). A
shortcut which is sometimes convenient is: one can copy definitions with name
my_tac1
, my_tac2
, my_tac3
, into the tactic.interactive
namespace using
run_cmd add_interactive [`my_tac1,`my_tac2, `my_tac3]
.
These functions will be used to generate Lean proofs, but we will not prove
anything about these functions themselves, nor will the constants my_tac1
,
my_tac2
, etc. appear in the proofs
that they generate. By prefacing them with the keyword meta
, we tell Lean that
they are for "evaluation purposes only," which disables some of the checks that
nonmeta
declarations must pass.
This is enough knowledge to write a first tactic.
meta def my_first_tactic : tactic unit := tactic.trace "Hello, World."
example : true :=
begin
my_first_tactic,
trivial
end
In the example, my_first_tactic
is underlined in green (in VS Code) and
moving the cursor on that line will display our message in the Lean
messages buffer.
Next we need to learn how to chain several actions. Deep down, this is
all about composing functions, but the monadic notations hide this and
emulate imperative programming. We need to use the and_then
combinator. The first way is to use the infix notation >>
, as in:
meta def my_second_tactic : tactic unit :=
tactic.trace "Hello," >> tactic.trace "World."
which now prints our message in two pieces. Alternatively, one can use
the do
syntax, which has other goodies. This introduces a
commaseparated list of instructions to perform in sequence.
meta def my_second_tactic' : tactic unit :=
do
tactic.trace "Hello,",
tactic.trace "World."
Besides displaying messages, the next thing tactics can do is to fail, potentially with some explanation.
meta def my_failing_tactic : tactic unit := tactic.failed
meta def my_failing_tactic' : tactic unit :=
tactic.fail "This tactic failed, we apologize for the inconvenience."
When chaining instructions, the first failure interrupts the process.
However the orelse
combinator, denoted by an infix <>
allows to try
its righthand side if its lefthand side failed. The following will
successfully deliver its message.
meta def my_orelse_tactic : tactic unit :=
my_failing_tactic <> my_first_tactic
The next composite thing to do is to use some function that, after
reading or altering the proof state, actually tries to return
something. For instance the builtin tactic.target
(tries to) return
the current goal. This goal has type expr
(more on that type later).
The type of tactic.target
is thus tactic expr
. Say we want to trace
the current goal. A naive attempt would be:
meta def broken_trace_goal : tactic unit :=
tactic.trace tactic.target  WRONG!
This cannot be correct because tactic.target
could fail (there could
be no more goal) and tactic.trace
cannot take that failure as an
input. We need the bind combinator, with infix notation >>=
, sending
the output of its lefthand side to its righthand side in case of
success and failing otherwise.
meta def trace_goal : tactic unit :=
tactic.target >>= tactic.trace
Alternatively, especially if the output of tactic.target
could be used
several times, one can use the do
blocks assignments using ←
(the
same arrow as in the rewrite syntax). This emulation of imperative
variable assignment will of course fail (as the failing tactics above)
if the righthand side of the assignment fails.
meta def trace_goal' : tactic unit :=
do
goal ← tactic.target,
tactic.trace goal
Beware that this kind of assignment is only trying to extract data of type
α
from something of type tactic α
. It cannot be used to store
regular stuff. The following doesn't work.
meta def broken_assignment : tactic unit :=
do
message ← "Hello, World.",  WRONG!
tactic.trace message
However, one can use let
in do
blocks, as in:
meta def let_example : tactic unit :=
do
let message := "Hello, World.",
tactic.trace message
Next, we want to write tactics returning something, as tactic.target
is doing. The only extra ingredient is the return
function. The
following function tries to return tt
is there is no more goal, ff
otherwise. The next one can be used interactively and traces the result
(note that using the first one interactively won't have any visible
effect since interactive use ignores the returned value).
meta def is_done : tactic bool :=
(tactic.target >> return ff) <> return tt
meta def trace_is_done : tactic unit :=
is_done >>= tactic.trace
The last thing we will need about monadic assignment is patternmatching
assignment. The following tactic tries to define expressions l
and r
as
the left and right hand sides of the current goal. It also uses the
to_string
function which is very convenient in combination with trace
in order to debug tactics, and works on any type which is an instance of has_to_string
.
meta def trace_goal_is_eq : tactic unit :=
(do `(%%l = %%r) ← tactic.target,
tactic.trace $ "Goal is equality between " ++ (to_string l) ++ " and " ++ (to_string r) )
<> tactic.trace "Goal is not an equality"
The parenthesis in the above code don't look very nice. One could use
instead curly brackets which allow to delimit a do
block, as in:
meta def trace_goal_is_eq : tactic unit :=
do { `(%%l = %%r) ← tactic.target,
tactic.trace $ "Goal is equality between " ++ (to_string l) ++ " and " ++ (to_string r) }
<> tactic.trace "Goal is not an equality"
A first real world tactic #
We have studied enough monadology to understand our first useful tactic:
the assumption
tactic, which searches the local context for an
assumption which closes the current goal. It uses a couple more builtin
tactics, both declared and briefly documented in the core library in
init/meta/tactic.lean but actually implemented in C++.
First infer_type : expr → tactic expr
tries to determine the type of an expression (since it returns a
tactic expr
, it must be chained with either >>=
or ←
, as explained
above).
Next tactic.unify
which, modulo a couple of optional parameters, takes
two expressions and succeeds if and only if they are definitionally equal.
The first piece of the assumption tactic is a helper function searching
an expression sharing the type of some expression e
in a list of
expressions, returning the first match (or failing if nothing matches).
meta def find_matching_type (e : expr) : list expr → tactic expr
 [] := tactic.failed
 (H :: Hs) := do t ← tactic.infer_type H,
(tactic.unify e t >> return H) <> find_matching_type Hs
Make sure you really understand the control flow in the above code using
the previous section. The basic pattern is classical recursive find in a
list. Notice the expression e
is left of colon, hence it will be passed
unchanged to the recursive call find_matching_type Hs
. The choice of
name H
stands for hypothesis
, while Hs
, following Haskell's naming
conventions, stands for several hypotheses. The imperative analogue of
what happens for nonempty lists would read something like the following
imperative pseudocode
if unify(e, infer_type(H)) then return H else find_matching_type(e, HS)
We can now use this function for our interactive tactic. We first need
to grab the local context using local_context
, which returns a list of
expressions that we can pass to our find_matching_type
. If that
function succeeds, its output is passed to the builtin tactic
tactic.exact
. Here we need to use the fully qualified name because of
possible confusion with the interactive version of exact
(which takes
different parameters, so it's not an exact copy of the noninteractive
one). This is good opportunity to point out that the beginning of this
tutorial uses fully qualified names everywhere for clarity, but of
course the real world workflow is to open the tactic
namespace.
meta def my_assumption : tactic unit :=
do { ctx ← tactic.local_context,
t ← tactic.target,
find_matching_type t ctx >>= tactic.exact }
<> tactic.fail "my_assumption tactic failed"
Bonus question: what if we remove the brackets? Will it still typecheck? If yes, will the resulting tactic be the same?
Monadic loops #
A crucial tool of imperative programming is loops, so monads must
emulate this. We already know from usual Lean that list.map
and
list.foldr
/list.foldl
allow to loop on elements of list. But we need
version that interacts nicely with the monad world (consuming and
returning terms of type tactic stuff
). Those versions are prefixed with
"m" for monad, as in list.mmap
, list.mfoldr
etc. Our tactic is then:
meta def list_types : tactic unit :=
do
l ← tactic.local_context,
l.mmap (λ h, tactic.infer_type h >>= tactic.trace),
return ()
The last line is a bit silly: it's there because what we get from the
previous line has type list unit
, so it cannot be the final
piece of our do block. Hence we add return ()
where ()
is the
only term of type unit
. One can also use the tactic skip
to achieve
the same goal. This special case is so common that we actually have a
variant list.mmap'
of list.mmap
which discards the result of
the function applied to elements of the list, and returns ()
when it's
done traversing the list.
Manipulating the local context #
Our next goal is to be able to use and create assumptions in the local context. We will write a tactic that produces a new assumption by adding two known equalities (or failing miserably if this operation doesn't make sense). At first the names of thoses two equalities will be stupidly hardwired in our tactic. So we want a tactic performing the first line in the following proof.
example (a b j k : ℤ) (h₁ : a = b) (h₂ : j = k) :
a + j = b + k :=
begin
have := congr (congr_arg has_add.add h₁) h₂,
exact this
end
The first new concept we need is that of a name. In order to allow for
namespace management, names in Lean are actually defined as an inductive
type, in core library meta/name.lean. Manipulating its constructors is not
convenient, so we use instead the backtick notation (this is the first of
many uses of backticks in tactic writing). Actually we already did that when
discussing the add_interactive
command at the very beginning. Accessing an
item of the local context by its name is done by tactic.get_local
. The next
new piece we need is tactic.interactive.«have»
which will create our new
context item. Its weird name works around the fact that have
is a keyword,
hence not a valid name. It takes two optional arguments that we ignore for
now, and a preexpression which is a proof of our new item. Such a
preexpression is constructed using the doublebacktickparenthesis notation:
``(...)
. Inside such a construction, previously assigned expressions
are accessed using the antiquotation prefix %%
. This syntax is very close
to the pattern matching syntax we saw above (but different).
open tactic.interactive («have»)
open tactic (get_local infer_type)
meta def tactic.interactive.add_eq_h₁_h₂ : tactic unit :=
do e1 ← get_local `h₁,
e2 ← get_local `h₂,
«have» none none ``(_root_.congr (congr_arg has_add.add %%e1) %%e2)
example (a b j k : ℤ) (h₁ : a = b) (h₂ : j = k) :
a + j = b + k :=
begin
add_eq_h₁_h₂,
exact this
end
A last remark about the above tactic: the names `h₁
and `h₂
are resolved
when the tactic is executed. In order to trigger name resolution when
the tactic is parsed, one should use doublebacktick, as in ``h₁
. Of course
in the above context, that would trigger an error since nothing named h₁
is
in sight at tactic parsing time. But it can be useful in other cases.
Tactic arguments parsing #
Parsing identifiers #
Obviously the previous tactic is useless if the assumption names are hardwired. So we replace it by:
open interactive (parse)
open lean.parser (ident)
meta def tactic.interactive.add_eq (h1 : parse ident) (h2 : parse ident) : tactic unit :=
do e1 ← get_local h1,
e2 ← get_local h2,
«have» none none ``(_root_.congr (congr_arg has_add.add %%e1) %%e2)
The arguments h1
and h2
tell lean to parse identifiers. There is quite a
bit of trickery going one here. The Lean parser sees parse
left of colon,
so it knows it must do some argument parsing, but then the resulting type is
nothing but a name, as demonstrated below.
meta example : (parse ident) = name := rfl
Parsing optional arguments and using tokens #
The next improvement to this tactic offers the opportunity to name the new
local assumption (which is currently named this
). Such names are
traditionally introduced by the token with
, followed by the desired identifier.
The "followed by" is expressed by the seq_right
combinator (there is again
a monad lurking here), with notation *>
. Parsing a token is introduced by
lean.parser.tk
followed by a string which must be taken from a
predetermined list (the initial value of this list can be found in
Lean source code, in frontends/lean/token_table.cpp,
elements are added to this list when literals are used in notation
, infix
, or precedence
).
And then the combination is wrapped into optional
to make it optional. The term h
we
get below has then type option name
and can be passed as the first argument
of «have»
, which will use it if provided, and otherwise use the name this
.
open lean.parser (tk)
meta def tactic.interactive.add_eq' (h1 : parse ident) (h2 : parse ident)
(h : parse (optional (tk "with" *> ident))) : tactic unit :=
do e1 ← get_local h1,
e2 ← get_local h2,
«have» h none ``(_root_.congr (congr_arg has_add.add %%e1) %%e2)
example (m a b c j k : ℤ) (Hj : a = b) (Hk : j = k) :
a + j = b + k :=
begin
add_eq' Hj Hk with new,
exact new
end
Parsing locations and expressions #
Our next tactic multiplies from the left an equality by a given expression (or fails if this operation wouldn't make sense). We want to mechanize the following proof.
example (a b c : ℤ) (hyp : a = b) : c*a = c*b :=
begin
replace hyp := congr_arg (λ x, c*x) hyp,
exact hyp
end
The main new skills here consist in indicating at what location we want to
act, using the traditional token at
, and passing an expression to the
tactic. Locations are defined in the core library meta/interactive_base.lean as
an inductive type having two constructors: wildcard
which indicates all
locations, and loc.ns
which takes a list (option name)
, where none
in
the option name
means the current goal, whereas some n
means the thing
named n
in the local context. In our case we will patternmatch on the
parsed location and reject everything except specifying a single name from
the local context. The second new piece is how to parse a userprovided
expression. The relevant parser is interactive.types.texpr
, whose result is
converted to an actual expression using tactic.i_to_expr
. This is also the
opportunity for our first serious use of pattern matching assignment, and
for using the second optional argument of «have»
which is the expected type
(otherwise we would get unapplied multiplication, with an explicit lambda, try it!).
open interactive (loc.ns)
open interactive.types (texpr location)
meta def tactic.interactive.mul_left (q : parse texpr) : parse location → tactic unit
 (loc.ns [some h]) := do
e ← tactic.i_to_expr q,
H ← get_local h,
`(%%l = %%r) ← infer_type H,
«have» h ``(%%e*%%l = %%e*%%r) ``(congr_arg (λ x, %%e*x) %%H),
tactic.clear H
 _ := tactic.fail "mul_left takes exactly one location"
example (a b c : ℤ) (hyp : a = b) : c*a = c*b :=
begin
mul_left c at hyp,
exact hyp
end
As a last refinement, let us make a version of this tactic which names the
multiplied equality by appending .mul
, and optionally removes the original
one if the tactic name is followed by !
. This is the opportunity to use
when
which is the monadic version of ite
(with else branch doing nothing).
See control/combinators.lean in core library for other variations on this idea.
meta def tactic.interactive.mul_left_bis (clear_hyp : parse (optional $ tk "!")) (q : parse texpr) :
parse location → tactic unit
 (loc.ns [some h]) := do
e ← tactic.i_to_expr q,
H ← get_local h,
`(%%l = %%r) ← infer_type H,
«have» (H.local_pp_name ++ "mul" : name) ``(%%e*%%l = %%e*%%r) ``(congr_arg (λ x, %%e*x) %%H),
when clear_hyp.is_some (tactic.clear H)
 _ := tactic.fail "mul_left_bis takes exactly one location"
What to read now? #
This is the end of this tutorial (although there are two cheat sheets below). If you want to learn more, you can read the definitions of tactics in either the core library or mathlib, see what you can understand, and ask specific questions on Zulip. For more theory, especially a proper explanation of monads, you can read Programming in Lean, but the actual tactic writing part is not up to date. The official documentation of the tactic framework is the paper A Metaprogramming Framework for Formal Verification.
Mario's backtick cheat sheet #
This section is a direct compilation of messages from Mario on Zulip.

`my.name
is the way to refer to a name. It is essentially a form of string quoting; no checks are done besides parsing dots into namespaced names. 
``some
does name resolution at parse time, so this example expands to`option.some
and will error if the given name doesn't exist. 
`(my expr)
constructs an expression at parse time, resolving what it can in the current (of the tactic) namespace. 
``(my pexpr)
constructs a preexpression at parse time, resolving in the current (of the tactic) namespace. 
```(my pexpr)
constructs apexpr
, but defers resolution to run time (of the tactic), meaning that any references will be resolved in the namespace of thebegin
end
block of the user, rather than the tactic itself. 
%%
: This is called antiquotation, and is supported in all the expr and pexpr quoting expressions`(expr)
,``(pexpr)
,```(pexpr)
, as well as`[tacs]
. Wherever an expression is expected inside one of these quoting constructs, you can use%%e
instead, wheree
has typeexpr
in the outer context of the tactic, and it will be spliced into the constructedexpr
/pexpr
/etc. For example, ifa b : expr
then`(%%a + %%b)
is of typeexpr
. 
The
reflect
function turns a termt : T
into anexpr
that reflectst
, if Lean can infer an instancereflected t
. This can be used, for example, to refer to local variables from a tactic definition inside a quotation, using%%(reflect n)
. As an example, we could writemeta def assert_ge_zero (n : ℕ) : tactic unit := do v ← to_expr ``(nat.zero_le %%(reflect n)), t ← infer_type v, assertv `h t v, skip
If you just wrote
n
directly here you'd get a "unexpected local in quotation expression" error. 
`[tac...]
is exactly the same asbegin tac... end
in the sense that it parsestac...
using the interactive mode parser, but instead of evaluating the tactic to produce a term, it just wraps up the list of tactics as a single tactic of typetactic unit
. This is useful for writing "macros" or lightweight tactic writing
Also worth mentioning are expr
pattern matches, which have the same syntax
like `(%%a + %%b)
. These can be used in the pattern position of a match or on
the left side of a ←
in do notation, and will destruct an expression and
bind the antiquoted variables.
For example, if e
is an expression then do `(%%a = %%b) ← return e, ...
will check that
e
is an equality, and bind the LHS and RHS to a
and b
(of type expr
), and if it is not an
equality the tactic will fail.
(It's worth noting that this sort of pattern matching works at a syntactic level. Sometimes it is more flexible to use unification, instead.)
Mario's monadic symbols cheat sheet #
All functions and notations from the list below apply to more general monads than tactic
, so they
are listed in a generic form but, for the purposes
of this tutorial m
is always tactic
(or lean.parser
). Although
everything can be done with the symbols introduced in this tutorials, more
esoteric symbols allow to compress code, and understanding them is useful for
reading available tactics.
return
: produce a value in the monad (type:A → m A
)ma >>= f
: get the value of typeA
fromma : m A
and pass it tof : A → m B
. Alternate syntax:do a ← ma, f a
f <$> ma
: apply the functionf : A → B
to the value inma : m A
to get am B
. Same asdo a ← ma, return (f a)
ma >> mb
: same asdo a ← ma, mb
; here the return value ofma
is ignored and thenmb
is called. Alternate syntax:do ma, mb
mf <*> ma
: same asdo f ← mf, f <$> ma
, ordo f ← mf, a ← ma, return (f a)
ma <* mb
: same asdo a ← ma, mb, return a
ma *> mb
: same asdo ma, mb
, orma >> mb
. Why two notations for the same thing? Historical reasons.pure
: same asreturn
. Again, historical reasons.failure
: failed value (specific monads usually have a more useful form of this, likefail
andfailed
for tactics).ma <> ma'
recover from failure: runsma
and if it fails then runsma'
.a $> mb
: same asdo mb, return a
ma <$ b
: same asdo ma, return b