code-review-solidity
Skill27 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub
Security review of Solidity / EVM smart contracts — reentrancy, access control, arithmetic, and DeFi economic bugs. Load when reviewing a smart contract / web3 codebase or PR, on .sol source in scope, or "audit this contract". Signals: *.sol, foundry/hardhat, ERC-20/721, external calls, delegatecall, proxy patterns, price oracles.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NoorQureshi/roninword for word, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- NoorQureshi/SploitAgentword for word, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- NoorQureshi/ronin★ 26100% same
- NoorQureshi/SploitAgent★ 26100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository207 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ad-adcsSkill
- ad-dacl-abuseSkill
- ad-delegation-abuseSkill
- ad-kerberoastingSkill
- ad-pivot-arsenalSkill
- ai-agent-tool-abuseSkill
- ai-insecure-output-handlingSkill
- ai-jailbreakSkill
- ai-llm-dosSkill
- ai-mcp-securitySkill
- ai-model-extractionSkill
- ai-prompt-injectionSkill
- ai-rag-poisoningSkill
- ai-sensitive-data-disclosureSkill
- ai-supply-chainSkill
- ai-system-prompt-leakageSkill
- api-auth-attacksSkill
- api-bolaSkill
- api-fuzzingSkill
- api-graphqlSkill
- api-grpcSkill
- api-mass-assignmentSkill
- api-mongo-agg-facet-bypassSkill
- api-testing-checklistSkill
- api-versioningSkill
- automation-browserSkill
- automation-nuclei-templatesSkill
- automation-recon-pipelineSkill
- cloud-azureSkill
- cloud-container-escapeSkill
- cloud-docker-api-abuseSkill
- cloud-docker-registrySkill
- cloud-gcpSkill
- cloud-iam-privescSkill
- cloud-imds-ssrfSkill
- cloud-kubernetesSkill
- cloud-s3-exposureSkill
- code-review-cicdSkill
- code-review-cppSkill
- code-review-dangerous-sinksSkill
- code-review-dotnetSkill
- code-review-goSkill
- code-review-iacSkill
- code-review-javaSkill
- code-review-methodologySkill
- code-review-nodejsSkill
- code-review-phpSkill
- code-review-pythonSkill
- code-review-rubySkill
- code-review-rustSkill
- code-review-secrets-detectionSkill
- crypto-oracle-attacksSkill
- crypto-rsa-attacksSkill
- ctf-cryptoSkill
- ctf-forensicsSkill
- ctf-methodologySkill
- ctf-pwnSkill
- ctf-revSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 46
Run slither (fast, high-signal) and mythril.
- Distinctive: line 47
Read every external call and check state-update ordering (reentrancy) and return-value handling.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Solidity / smart-contract review
When it applies
Reviewing on-chain code (a protocol, a token, a bridge). Smart-contract bugs are usually irreversible and directly financial, so the review bar is high and the classic patterns are well known — start there, then look for economic/logic flaws unique to the protocol.
Why it works
The EVM executes exactly as written with real money at stake: an external call can re-enter before state updates, arithmetic wraps, and a missing modifier means anyone can call a privileged function. Most losses trace to a small set of patterns a careful read (plus Slither/Mythril) will surface.
Sinks & patterns (read, then reason about ordering and trust)
- Reentrancy: state changed after an external call/
.call{value:}/token callback (ERC-777/721 hooks). Enforce checks-effects-interactions or anonReentrantguard. - Access control: privileged functions missing
onlyOwner/role modifiers;tx.originused for auth (phishable); unprotectedinitialize()on upgradeable proxies. - Arithmetic: unchecked math (pre-0.8, or inside
unchecked{}) → over/underflow; precision loss from divide-before-multiply; rounding that favors the attacker. - Unchecked calls: ignoring
call/sendreturn values; assuming an external call succeeded. - delegatecall: to attacker-influenced targets → storage/logic hijack; storage-layout mismatch in proxies.
- Oracle / economics: spot-price from a manipulable AMM (flash-loan price manipulation), missing slippage/deadline, MEV/front-running of state-changing txs, first-depositor share inflation.
- Other:
selfdestruct/force-fed ether assumptions, weak randomness (block.timestamp/blockhash), signature replay (missing nonce/chainId in EIP-712), DoS via unbounded loops.
Method
- Run
slither(fast, high-signal) andmythril; triage findings. - Read every external call and check state-update ordering (reentrancy) and return-value handling.
- Map roles/modifiers to every state-changing and fund-moving function.
- Model the economics: how does price/valuation get set, and can a flash loan move it within one tx?
- Property-test invariants with
echidna/Foundry fuzzing where feasible.
Gotchas
- Solidity ≥0.8 checks arithmetic by default — the risk moves into
unchecked{}blocks and casts. - A "reentrancy guard" doesn't help cross-function or cross-contract reentrancy — check the whole path.
- Upgradeable proxies add initializer, storage-collision, and
delegatecallrisks absent in plain contracts.
References
SWC Registry; Slither/Mythril docs; Trail of Bits & OpenZeppelin audit guidance; rekt.news post-mortems.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

