diff --git a/redex-curnel.rkt b/redex-curnel.rkt
index fbc42d7..7cbe3eb 100644
--- a/redex-curnel.rkt
+++ b/redex-curnel.rkt
@@ -119,9 +119,6 @@
     (check-holds (α-equivalent (λ (x : A) x)
                                (λ (y : A) y))))
 
-
-
-
   ;; NB: Substitution is hard
   ;; NB: Copy and pasted from Redex examples
   (define-metafunction cicL
@@ -165,6 +162,8 @@
     [(subst-all t (x_0 x ...) (e_0 e ...))
      (subst-all (subst t x_0 e_0) (x ...) (e ...))])
 
+  ;; TODO: I think a lot of things can be simplified if I rethink how
+  ;; TODO: model contexts, telescopes, and such.
   (define-extended-language cic-redL cicL
     (E   ::= hole (v E) (E e)) ;; call-by-value
     ;; Σ (signature). (inductive-name : type ((constructor : type) ...))
@@ -217,6 +216,7 @@
      ((append-Σ Σ_2 Σ_1) (x : t ((x_c : t_c) ...)))])
 
   ;; TODO: Test
+  ;; TODO: Isn't this just plug?
   (define-metafunction cic-redL
     apply-telescope : t Ξ -> t
     [(apply-telescope t hole) t]
@@ -985,7 +985,8 @@
       cur-expand
       type-infer/syn
       type-check/syn?
-      normalize/syn)
+      normalize/syn
+      cur-equal?)
     run)
 
   (begin-for-syntax
@@ -1139,6 +1140,10 @@
     (define (run-cur->datum syn)
       (cur->datum (normalize/syn syn)))
 
+    ;; Are these two terms equivalent in type-systems internal equational reasoning?
+    (define (cur-equal? e1 e2)
+      (and (judgment-holds (equivalent ,(sigma) ,(run-cur->datum e1) ,(run-cur->datum e2)) #t)))
+
     ;; TODO: OOps, type-infer doesn't return a cur term but a redex term
     ;; wrapped in syntax bla. This is bad.
     (define (type-infer/syn syn)
diff --git a/stdlib/tactics.rkt b/stdlib/tactics.rkt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e03c11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stdlib/tactics.rkt
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+#lang s-exp "../redex-curnel.rkt"
+(require racket/stxparam
+         racket/trace
+         racket/syntax
+         (for-syntax racket/trace racket/syntax))
+
+;; NB: The design of Cur currently seems to prevent intermediate type-checking
+;; NB: during a tactic-based proof, unless I were to either reimplement the
+;; NB: type-checker or extend it with a notion of holes.
+
+;; NB: Per below, note that Cur already has contexts. The issue with
+;; NB: type-checking intermediate results has to do with the fact that Cur
+;; NB: contexts are not exposed properly, nor is type-checking defined on
+;; NB: them.
+
+;;; A Goal is a syntax object representing a Cur proposition (type).
+
+;;; A Expr is a syntax object representing Cur expression (term).
+
+;;; A Hole is a procedure of type
+
+;;; A Ctxt is a procedure (Either Ctxt Expr) -> (Either Ctxt Expr)
+;;; representing a Cur expression with a hole.
+
+;;; A Environment is a map from Symbol to Goal.
+
+;; A Proof-State is a struct containing:
+;;   env: An Environment, the assumptions introduced during a tactic
+;;        script.
+;;   goals: A map from Natural to Goal, the goals necessary to finish
+;;          this proof
+;;   current-goal: A Natural, the index into goals of the current Goal
+;;                 to be proved.
+;;   current-proof: A (Either Ctxt Expr), representing the proof so far.
+;;                  current-proof is an Expr, the proof is complete.
+
+(begin-for-syntax
+  (define hole 'hole)
+  (define-struct proof-state (env goals current-goal current-proof))
+
+  (define current-proof-state (make-parameter #f))
+
+  ;; The current theorem; used internally to achieve a Coq-like notation
+  ;; for defining theorems and tactic-based proofs.
+  (define current-theorem (make-parameter #f))
+
+  (define (new-proof-state prop)
+    (unless prop
+      (raise-syntax-error 'qed "You can't use qed without a first using define-theorem"))
+    (proof-state (make-immutable-hash) (make-immutable-hash) prop values))
+
+  ;; push-env adds a mapping from name to P in (proof-state-env ps).
+  ;; Proof-State -> Symbol -> Goal -> Proof-State
+  (define (push-env ps name P)
+    (struct-copy proof-state ps
+      [env (hash-set (proof-state-env ps) name P)]))
+
+  ;; TODO: Cur already has contexts; perhaps they should be exposed?
+  ;; Ctxt -> (Either Ctxt Expr) -> (Either Ctxt Expr)
+  ;; C1[C2]
+  (define (plug-ctxt C1 C2) (C1 C2))
+
+  (define Ctxt? procedure?)
+
+  (define (proof-complete? ps) (not (Ctxt? (proof-state-current-proof ps))))
+
+  (define (update-current-proof ps pf)
+    ;; TODO: Check for proof completion?
+    (struct-copy proof-state ps
+      [current-proof (plug-ctxt (proof-state-current-proof ps) pf)]))
+
+  (define (update-current-goal ps goal)
+    (struct-copy proof-state ps
+      [current-goal goal])))
+
+;; A tactic is a Racket function that manipulates the current proof state.
+;; Tactic : Args ... Proof-State -> Proof-State
+
+;;; Syntax for defining tactics.
+;; (define-tactic command-name function)
+;; (define-tactic (command-name args ... Proof-State) body)
+(define-syntax (define-tactic syn)
+  (syntax-case syn ()
+    [(_ (name args ... ps) body ...)
+     ;; TODO: quasisyntax/loc
+     #'(begin-for-syntax
+         (define (name args ... ps)
+           body ...))]
+    [(_ name function)
+     (raise-syntax-error "Syntax not yet defined")]))
+
+;; (define-goal-tactic command-name function)
+;; (define-goal-tactic (command-name args ... ctx goal-list current-goal) body)
+
+(define-tactic (intro name ps)
+  ;; TODO: Maybe cur-expand current-goal by default
+  ;; TODO: Goals should probably be Curnel terms
+  (syntax-parse (cur-expand (proof-state-current-goal ps))
+    [(forall (x:id : P:expr) body:expr)
+     (update-current-goal
+       (update-current-proof
+        (push-env ps (syntax-e name) #'P)
+        (lambda (x) #`(λ (x : P) #,x)))
+       #'body)]
+    [_ (error 'intro "Can only intro when current goal is of the form (∀ (x : P) body)")]))
+
+(begin-for-syntax
+  (define (assumption ps type)
+    (for/first ([(k v) (in-dict (proof-state-env ps))]
+                #:when (cur-equal? v type))
+      k)))
+(define-tactic (by-assumption ps)
+  (cond
+    [(assumption ps (cur-expand (proof-state-current-goal ps)))
+     => (curry update-current-proof ps)]
+    [else (error 'by-assumption "Cannot find an assumption that matches the goal")]))
+
+;; TODO: requires more support from curnel
+#;(begin-for-syntax
+  (define (inductive? ps type)
+    ))
+(define-tactic (obvious ps)
+  (syntax-parse (cur-expand (proof-state-current-goal ps))
+    [(forall (x : P) t)
+     (obvious (intro #'x ps))]
+    [t:expr
+     (cond
+       [(assumption ps #'t) (by-assumption ps)]
+       ;[(inductive? ps #'t) (by-constructor ps)]
+       [else (error 'obvious "This is not all that obvious to me.")])]))
+
+;; Tactic DSL grammar:
+;;   tactic-script ::= (qed (tactic-name args ...))
+;;   tactic-name ::= dom(tactics)
+;;   args ::= dom(env)
+
+;; TODO:
+;; Open interactive REPL for tactic DSL; exit with QED command, which
+;; returns a QED script
+;(define-syntax interactive-qed)
+
+;; Drop into tactic DSL, ends either explicitly or implicitly with the
+;; QED command.
+;; Example:
+;;   (define-theorem name prop)
+;;   (qed
+;;     (intro x)
+;;     (elim)
+;;     (apply f x)))
+(define-syntax (define-theorem syn)
+  (syntax-case syn ()
+    [(_ name prop)
+     (begin
+       (current-theorem (cur-expand #'prop))
+       #'(define name prop))]))
+(define-syntax (qed syn)
+  (syntax-case syn ()
+    [(_ (f args* ...) ...)
+     (let* ([t (current-theorem)]
+            [pf (proof-state-current-proof
+                  (syntax-local-eval #`(let* ([ps (new-proof-state #'#,t)]
+                                              [ps (f #'args* ... ps)] ...)
+                                             ps)))])
+          (when (procedure? pf)
+             (raise-syntax-error 'qed "Proof contains holes" (pf hole)))
+          (unless (type-check/syn? pf t)
+             (raise-syntax-error 'qed "Invalid proof" pf t))
+          pf)]))
+(module+ test
+  (require "bool.rkt")
+  (define-theorem meow (forall (x : bool) bool))
+  (qed
+    (intro x)
+    (by-assumption))
+  (define-theorem meow1 (forall (x : bool) bool))
+  (qed (obvious))
+  )