Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
["Apply Checks-Effects-Interactions (CEI) pattern before any external call","Verify access control modifiers on every state-mutating function","Track integer arithmetic boundaries explicitly (overflow, underflow, precision loss)","Document all contract invariants and verify them with formal or property-based tests","Trace reentrancy paths across all external calls including ERC20 hooks"]
Smart contract and secure API contract security analysis skill. Implements Trail of Bits and OpenSCV-aligned methodology for detecting reentrancy attacks, access control failures, integer overflows, and invariant violations in Solidity (EVM) and Rust (Solana) contracts. Addresses the $1.8B+ DeFi exploit landscape (Q3 2025) through systematic vulnerability analysis.
- Checks-Effects-Interactions (CEI) pattern enforcement and verification
- Reentrancy attack surface mapping (cross-function, cross-contract, read-only)
- Access control audit: missing modifiers, privilege escalation, role confusion
- Integer arithmetic analysis: overflow, underflow, precision loss, rounding direction
- Contract invariant identification and formal verification setup
- Storage collision and proxy upgrade security analysis
- Oracle manipulation and price feed dependency analysis
- Flash loan attack surface enumeration
- EVM vs Solana security model comparison and platform-specific risk identification
- OpenSCV vulnerability taxonomy classification for all findings
Overview
This skill applies systematic security analysis to smart contracts and secure API contracts. The core principle: every state mutation must be proven safe through invariant verification before an external call executes. It covers both EVM (Solidity) and Solana (Rust) ecosystems with platform-specific vulnerability patterns.
When auditing existing contracts for security vulnerabilities
When reviewing API contracts for invariant violations
When adding new entry points or external calls to existing contracts
When upgrading proxy contracts (storage slot collision risk)
When integrating oracles, flash loans, or third-party DeFi protocols
Iron Laws
NEVER make external calls before updating state — Checks-Effects-Interactions (CEI) is non-negotiable; any external call before state update is a reentrancy vector regardless of perceived safety.
NEVER assume access control is correct without reading every modifier — access control failures account for ~53% of 2024 DeFi losses; verify every onlyOwner, onlyRole, and custom guard.
NEVER trust integer arithmetic without explicit bounds checking — Solidity 0.8+ has native overflow protection but custom assembly, unchecked blocks, and Rust/Solana code require explicit verification.
ALWAYS enumerate all contract invariants before analysis — invariants are the ground truth for correctness; a violation is always a bug; document them in NatSpec before reviewing the implementation.
ALWAYS test reentrancy across full call chains, not just single functions — cross-function reentrancy (withdraw + transfer sharing state) is as dangerous as direct reentrancy.
Phase 1: Contract Reconnaissance
Goal: Map the attack surface before deep analysis.
Steps
Enumerate entry points: All external/public functions, fallback, receive
Identify state-mutating functions: Functions that modify storage
Map access control boundaries: Roles, modifiers, ownership checks
Identify shared state between functions that both make external calls:
### Shared State: balances mapping- withdraw() reads + writes balances + makes external call
- emergencyWithdraw() reads + writes balances + makes external call
**RISK**: Reentrancy from withdraw() into emergencyWithdraw() bypasses checks
Phase 3: Access Control Audit
Goal: Verify every state-mutating function has appropriate guards.
Access Control Checklist
For each function:
### Function Audit: updateTreasury(address newTreasury)- [ ] Has access modifier? → NO ← FINDING: Missing onlyOwner
- [ ] Modifier verified in contract? → N/A (not present)
- [ ] Owner transferable safely? → N/A
- [ ] Time lock for critical changes? → NO
**Severity**: Critical — anyone can redirect protocol treasury
**Fix**: Add `onlyOwner` modifier and time-lock for parameter changes
Role Confusion Patterns
### Role Check: PAUSER_ROLE vs ADMIN_ROLE- pause() requires: PAUSER_ROLE
- unpause() requires: PAUSER_ROLE (RISK: pauser can also unpause)
- grantRole() requires: ADMIN_ROLE
**Issue**: Pauser can unilaterally pause and unpause — should require separate roles
**Severity**: Medium
Phase 4: Integer Arithmetic Analysis
Goal: Identify overflow, underflow, precision loss, and rounding direction bugs.
Arithmetic Boundary Analysis
### Function: calculateReward(uint256 principal, uint256 rate)- L88: `uint256 reward = principal * rate / 1e18` - Multiplication before division: OK (avoids precision loss)
- Overflow check: principal \* rate could overflow if both > sqrt(uint256.max)
- Rounding: truncates toward zero — check if favors protocol or user
-`unchecked` block? → NO → Solidity 0.8+ protects this
### Unchecked Block Analysis- L102-108: `unchecked { ... }` - Why unchecked? Check comment and verify mathematician's claim
- Is the claimed impossibility of overflow actually proven?
- [UNVERIFIED] claim: "amount < balance guarantees no underflow"
Phase 5: Invariant Verification
Goal: Identify and verify all contract-level invariants.
### Contract Invariants: LiquidityPool1.**Solvency**: sum(balances) == address(this).balance — [VERIFIED L90]
2.**Total supply**: totalSupply == sum(all user shares) — [UNVERIFIED]
3.**Fee bound**: fee <= MAX_FEE (1000 bps) — [VERIFIED by require at L45]
4. **Non-zero denominator**: totalSupply > 0 before share calculation — [VIOLATED at L67, division-by-zero risk on first deposit]
### Invariant Violation Findings
**FINDING**: Invariant 4 violated — first depositor can cause division by zero
- Location: L67 `shares = amount * totalSupply / totalAssets`
- When: totalSupply == 0 on first deposit
- Impact: DoS attack on first deposit; protocol initialization blocked
- Fix: Handle zero totalSupply case separately with initial share ratio
Output: Security Report
# Security Report: [Contract Name]## Summary- Functions analyzed: N
- Findings: N (Critical: X, High: Y, Medium: Z, Low: W)
- Invariants verified: N of M
- CEI violations: N
## Critical Findings### [F-01] Reentrancy in withdraw()- Location: `src/Pool.sol:L45`- Pattern: External call before state update (CEI violation)
- Impact: Complete fund drainage
- Fix: Apply CEI pattern — update state before external call
- 5 Whys: [root cause chain]
## Invariant Status
| Invariant | Status | Evidence |
| -------------------------- | ---------- | ------------------- |
| sum(balances) == balance | VERIFIED | L90 invariant check |
| totalSupply == sum(shares) | UNVERIFIED | No test coverage |
## Recommendations1. [Critical] Fix reentrancy in withdraw() before deployment
2. [High] Add reentrancy guard as defense-in-depth
3. [Medium] Add formal invariant tests via Foundry invariant suite
Integration with Agent-Studio
Recommended Workflow
Invoke audit-context-building for initial code reconnaissance
Invoke building-secure-contracts for contract-specific analysis
Feed findings into security-architect for threat modeling
Use static-analysis (Semgrep/CodeQL) for automated confirmation
Use medusa-security for fuzzing-based invariant testing
Complementary Skills
Skill
Relationship
audit-context-building
Builds initial mental model before contract analysis
security-architect
Consumes findings for threat modeling and STRIDE
static-analysis
Automated SAST confirmation of manual findings
medusa-security
Fuzzing and property-based testing for invariants
variant-analysis
Finds similar vulnerability patterns across codebase
web3-expert
Solidity/Ethereum ecosystem expertise
Anti-Patterns
Anti-Pattern
Why It Fails
Correct Approach
Auditing only the happy path
Reentrancy and access control bugs are invisible in happy path
Explicitly trace every error path and external call
Trusting function name for access control
onlyAdmin() might not check the actual admin role
Read the modifier implementation, not just its name
Assuming Solidity 0.8 prevents all integer bugs
unchecked blocks, assembly, and casting bypass protection
Audit all unchecked blocks and type casts explicitly
Map shared state across ALL functions making external calls
Leaving invariants implicit
Unwritten invariants are unverified risks
Document every invariant in NatSpec before analysis
Memory Protocol
Before starting: Check .claude/context/memory/learnings.md for prior contract audits of the same protocol or token standard.
During analysis: Write incremental findings to context report as discovered. Do not wait until the end.
After completion: Record key findings and patterns to .claude/context/memory/learnings.md. Record architecture decisions (CEI enforcement patterns, invariant frameworks) to decisions.md.
