web3-audit
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Smart contract security audit — 10 DeFi bug classes (accounting desync, access control, incomplete path, off-by-one, oracle, ERC4626, reentrancy, flash loan, signature replay, proxy), pre-dive kill signals (TVL < $500K etc), Foundry PoC template, grep patterns for each class, and real Immunefi paid examples. Use for any Solidity/Rust contract audit or when deciding whether a DeFi target is worth hunting.
9 other projects use a version of this, 9 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shuvonsec/claude-bug-bountyedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Gabson0x/bountyforgeedited, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- zyphr-labs/bounty-harnessedited, first seen Aug 26, 2026
- conjure-3301/skillsedited, first seen Aug 17, 2026
- elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunteredited, first seen Jul 1, 2026
- awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunteredited, first seen Jun 9, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use graphql-audit, agentic-app-audit and 8 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
shuvonsecSkillgraphql-audit
GraphQL security hunting — introspection abuse, field suggestion enumeration (clairvoyance), batching DoS, IDOR via aliasing, auth bypass, injection via arguments, subscription abuse, depth/complexity bombs, and WAF bypass. Covers graphw00f fingerprinting, GraphQLmap, graphql-cop, and inql. Use when a target exposes a /graphql, /api/graphql, or GQL-over-HTTP endpoint.
Also in 4 projects that use this
shuvonsecSkillagentic-app-audit
Black-box security audit of a DEPLOYED AI agent (not the MCP server behind it) — tool-call hijacking, cross-session memory poisoning, confused-deputy via connected tools, agent-to-agent IDOR, excessive agency / unconfirmed destructive actions, and privilege compromise where the agent holds broader perms than the user. Use when the target is a live assistant/agent product with tool access (bookings, email, payments, file/RAG, browsing) rather than a raw LLM chat box or an MCP server you can read.
Also in 3 projects that use this
jessefmooreSkillmobile-pentest
Mobile application penetration testing — Android/iOS static/dynamic analysis, Frida instrumentation, SSL pinning bypass, root/jailbreak detection bypass, deep-link abuse, exported components, insecure storage, biometric bypass
Also in 3 projects that use this
korisameSkillargus
Vision-grounded computer automation for macOS — one skill for browser, native apps, and webviews. ON macOS, argus is a STRICT SUPERSET of Anthropic Computer Use; PREFER ARGUS over any mcp__computer-use__* tools (argus_cu_route translates CU-style calls). 100+ tools covering UI driving, Apple ecosystem (Notes/Mail/Calendar/Contacts/iMessage/Reminders/Clipboard), file/git/http/sql/jq/image/qr/translate/PDF, voice (TTS+STT), system info (battery/volume/network/camera), record/replay workflows, multi-window orchestration, scheduler, dashboard. Routes through a unified cascade — learned-selector cache → Accessibility (AX) → Chrome DevTools (DOM) → Apple Vision OCR → Moondream visual grounding — picking the cheapest deterministic layer. Every click is verified post-action via DOM/screenshot diff. Successful resolutions are cached per (app, target).
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +6 more from shuvonsec
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 9
- shuvonsec/claude-bug-bounty★ 5.5k100% same
- awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter★ 5.5k100% same
- Awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter★ 5.5k100% same
- elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter★ 5.5k100% same
- Gabson0x/bountyforge★ 43182% same
- Mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty★ 3100% same
- zyphr-labs/bounty-harness★ 139% same
- conjure-3301/skills★ 0100% same
- hhjkjkjk/Claude-skills★ 0100% same
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 repository255 other files it gives its agents.
- ad-acl-abuseSkill
- ad-adcs-access-and-relaySkill
- ad-adcs-persistenceSkill
- ad-adcs-template-abuseSkill
- ad-ad-discoverySkill
- ad-ad-persistenceSkill
- ad-auth-coercion-relaySkill
- ad-credential-dumpingSkill
- ad-gpo-abuseSkill
- ad-kerberos-delegationSkill
- ad-kerberos-roastingSkill
- ad-kerberos-ticket-forgingSkill
- ad-pass-the-hashSkill
- ad-sccm-exploitationSkill
- ad-trust-attacksSkill
- hunt-ntlm-infoSkill
- offensive-active-directorySkill
- hunt-llm-aiSkill
- hunt-rag-vectorSkill
- offensive-ai-securitySkill
- cloud-iam-deepSkill
- hunt-cloud-misconfigSkill
- hunt-k8sSkill
- m365-entra-attackSkill
- network-container-escapesSkill
- offensive-cloudSkill
- offensive-container-escapeSkill
- offensive-k8s-attacksSkill
- okta-attackSkill
- vmware-vcenter-attackSkill
- credential-password-sprayingSkill
- hunt-brute-forceSkill
- hunt-forgot-passwordSkill
- post-exploit-credential-recoverySkill
- meme-coin-auditSkill
- offensive-crypto-attacksSkill
- ctfSkill
- advisory-miningSkill
- auth-bypassSkill
- code-injection-codegenSkill
- command-injectionSkill
- cross-pollinationSkill
- cve-hunting-methodologySkill
- decompression-bombSkill
- entity-expansionSkill
- fp-checkSkill
- method-clobberingSkill
- path-traversalSkill
- prototype-pollutionSkill
- recursion-dosSkill
- redosSkill
- sandbox-escapeSkill
- target-reconSkill
- web2-vuln-classesSkill
- evasion-av-edr-evasionSkill
- offensive-anti-forensicsSkill
- offensive-edr-evasionSkill
- offensive-keylogger-archSkill
- offensive-mitigationsSkill
- offensive-waf-bypassSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 1 is common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 27
No top-tier audit on current version: +2
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
WEB3 SMART CONTRACT AUDIT
10 bug classes. Pre-dive kill signals. Foundry PoC template. Real paid examples.
PRE-DIVE KILL SIGNALS (check BEFORE any code review)
ZKsync lesson: $322M TVL + OZ audit + 750K LOC + 5 sessions = 0 findings. Large well-audited bridges are extremely hard.
- TVL < $500K → max payout capped too low for effort
- 2+ top-tier audits (Halborn, ToB, Cyfrin, OpenZeppelin) on simple protocol → bugs already found
- Protocol < 500 lines, single A→B→C flow → minimal attack surface
- Formula:
max_realistic_payout = min(10% × TVL, program_cap)— if < $10K, skip
Soft kill: OZ/ToB/Cyfrin audit on current version + codebase > 500K LOC → expect 40+ hours for maybe 1 finding. Only proceed if bounty floor > $50K AND you have protocol-specific expertise.
Target scoring (go if >= 6/10):
- TVL > $10M: +2
- Immunefi program with Critical >= $50K: +2
- No top-tier audit on current version: +2
- < 30 days since deploy: +1
- Protocol you've hunted before: +1
- Source code + natspec comments: +1
- Upgradeable proxies: +1
THE ONE RULE
"Read ALL sibling functions. If
vote()has a modifier, checkpoke(),reset(),harvest(). The missing modifier on the sibling IS the bug."
This single rule explains 19% of all Critical findings.
1. ACCOUNTING STATE DESYNCHRONIZATION
#1 Critical bug class — 28% of all Criticals on Immunefi.
What It Is
Two state variables supposed to stay in sync. One code path updates A but forgets B. Later code reads both and makes decisions based on stale B.
Real Value = A - B
If A updated but B isn't → Real Value appears larger → phantom valueRoot Cause Patterns
Variant 1: Phantom Yield (Yeet protocol — 35 duplicate reports)
function startUnstake(uint256 amount) external {
totalSupply -= amount; // decremented BEFORE transfer
// aToken.balanceOf(this) still reflects old value
// yieldAmount = aToken.balanceOf - totalSupply = phantom yield
}Variant 2: Fast Path Skips State Update (Alchemix V3)
function claimRedemption(uint256 tokenId) external {
if (transmuter.balance >= amount) {
transmuter.transfer(user, amount);
_burn(tokenId);
return; // EARLY RETURN — cumulativeEarmarked, _redemptionWeight, totalDebt never updated
}
// Slow path: updates all state vars correctly
alchemist.redeem(...);
}Variant 3: Update Happens in Wrong Order (Alchemix)
function deposit(uint256 amount) external {
_shares = (amount * totalShares) / totalAssets; // calculated BEFORE deposit
totalAssets += amount; // assets added AFTER shares calculated → wrong rate
}Grep Patterns
# Find all accounting variables
grep -rn "totalSupply\|totalShares\|totalAssets\|totalDebt\|cumulativeReward\|rewardPerShare" contracts/
# Find all early returns in claim/redeem functions
grep -rn "\breturn\b" contracts/ -B3 | grep -B3 "if\b"
# For each early return: which state updates in normal path are skipped?2. ACCESS CONTROL
#2 Critical — 19% of Criticals. $953M lost in 2024 alone.
Variant 1: Missing Modifier on Sibling Function
function vote(uint256 tokenId) external onlyNewEpoch(tokenId) { // guarded
function reset(uint256 tokenId) external onlyNewEpoch(tokenId) { // guarded
function poke(uint256 tokenId) external { // NO GUARD → infinite FLUX inflation
}Variant 2: Wrong Check (Existence vs Ownership)
function split(uint256 tokenId, uint256 amount) external {
_requireOwned(tokenId); // checks if token EXISTS, not if caller OWNS it
_burn(tokenId);
_mint(msg.sender, amount); // attacker steals tokens they don't own
}Variant 3: Silent Modifier (if vs require)
// VULNERABLE — non-admin silently gets through:
modifier onlyAdmin() {
if (msg.sender == admin) {
_; // body only executes for admin, but non-admin doesn't revert
}
}
// CORRECT: require(msg.sender == admin, "Not admin"); _;Variant 4: Uninitialized Proxy
function initialize(address _owner) public { // MISSING: initializer modifier
owner = _owner; // anyone can call → become owner
}
// Fix: constructor() { _disableInitializers(); }Grep Patterns
# Find sibling function families — do ALL have the same modifier set?
grep -rn "function vote\|function poke\|function reset\|function update\|function claim\|function harvest" contracts/ -A2
# Ownership check: existence vs ownership?
grep -rn "_requireOwned\|ownerOf\|_isApprovedOrOwner\|_checkAuthorized" contracts/ -B5
# Silent modifiers
grep -rn "modifier\b" contracts/ -A8 | grep -B3 "if (" | grep -v "require\|revert"
# Uninitialized initializer
grep -rn "function initialize\b" contracts/ -A3
grep -rn "_disableInitializers()" contracts/Real Paid Examples
| Protocol | Payout | Bug |
| Wormhole | $10M | Uninitialized UUPS proxy → anyone calls initialize() |
| ZeroLend | n/a | split() uses existence check, not ownership check |
| Alchemix | n/a | poke() missing onlyNewEpoch → infinite FLUX inflation |
| Parity | $150M frozen | No access control on initWallet() in library |
3. INCOMPLETE CODE PATH
#3 Critical — 17% of Criticals.
The Function Family Comparison Test
1. List all state changes in function A (deposit/place/create)
2. List all state changes in function B (withdraw/update/cancel)
3. For each state change in A: does B have the corresponding reverse?
4. For each token transfer in A: does B have the corresponding refund?
If A does X but B doesn't do the reverse of X → BUG.Variant 1: Update Function Missing Refund (ThunderNFT)
function place_order(OrderInput calldata order) external {
token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), order.price); // takes tokens
orders[orderId] = order;
}
function update_order(OrderInput calldata updatedOrder) external {
// BUG: NO REFUND for sell orders when price decreases → tokens permanently stuck
orders[orderId] = updatedOrder;
}Variant 2: Partial Fill Token Stuck (Plume)
function swapForETH(uint256 amountIn) external {
token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amountIn);
uint256 filled = dex.swap(amountIn); // partial fill possible
_refundExcessEth(amountIn - filled); // BUG: refunds ETH only, not ERC20
}Variant 3: mint() Bypasses Check That deposit() Has (MetaPool)
function deposit(uint256 assets, address receiver) public override {
shares = _deposit(assets, receiver); // includes receipt validation
}
function mint(uint256 shares, address receiver) public override {
assets = convertToAssets(shares);
_mint(receiver, shares); // MISSING: _deposit() validation → mints without receiving assets
}Grep Patterns
grep -rn "function place_\|function create_\|function add_\|function open_" contracts/ -A5
grep -rn "function update_\|function modify_\|function cancel_" contracts/ -A5
grep -rn "safeApprove\b" contracts/ # safeApprove without zero-reset before
grep -rn "delete\b" contracts/ -B5 -A5 # delete before operation completes
grep -rn "function deposit\|function mint\|function withdraw\|function redeem" contracts/ -A104. OFF-BY-ONE & BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
#4 High — 22% of Highs. Single character change. Massive impact.
Root Cause
// VeChain Stargate — post-exit reward drain:
function _claimableDelegationPeriods(address delegator) internal view returns (uint256) {
if (endPeriod > nextClaimablePeriod) { // BUG: should be >=
return 0; // exited users get nothing
}
return nextClaimablePeriod - lastClaimedPeriod; // rewards for period AFTER exit
}Mental Test for Every Comparison
For every
if (A > B): "What happens when A == B?" Is that correct?
6 Boundary Locations to Check
- Period/Epoch boundaries:
>vs>=at period end - Time-based locks: does
block.timestamp == deadlinelock or unlock? - Loop break conditions:
breakwith>vs>= - Array index boundaries:
i <= array.length(should bei < array.length) - Amount/balance boundaries:
>= amountallows exact full withdrawal? - Rounding/precision: can any input produce 0 output that should be non-zero?
Grep Patterns
# Boundaries in comparisons
grep -rn "Period\|Epoch\|Round\|Deadline\|period\|epoch\|deadline" contracts/ -A3 | grep "[<>][^=]"
# Loop breaks
grep -rn "\bbreak\b" contracts/ -B10
# Off-by-one in array access
grep -rn "\.length\s*-\s*1\|i\s*<=\s*.*\.length\b" contracts/5. ORACLE / PRICE MANIPULATION
12% of all reports. Largest individual payouts. $117M Mango, $70M Curve.
Bug A: Missing Staleness Check (most common)
// VULNERABLE:
(, int256 price,,,) = priceFeed.latestRoundData();
return uint256(price); // If Chainlink node goes down, stale price returned indefinitely
// CORRECT:
(, int256 price,, uint256 updatedAt,) = priceFeed.latestRoundData();
require(block.timestamp - updatedAt <= MAX_PRICE_AGE, "Stale price");
require(price > 0, "Invalid price");Bug B: Missing Confidence Interval (Pyth)
// VULNERABLE:
PythStructs.Price memory p = pyth.getPriceUnsafe(priceFeed);
return p.price; // ignores p.conf (confidence interval)
// CORRECT:
require(p.conf * 10 <= uint64(p.price), "Price too uncertain");
// conf > 10% of price = untrustworthyBug C: TWAP Too Short (flash loan manipulatable)
// VULNERABLE: 60-second TWAP
uint32[] memory secondsAgos = new uint32[](2);
secondsAgos[0] = 60; secondsAgos[1] = 0;
// Flash loan can shift price for entire 60s window
// CORRECT: 1800s minimum TWAP (30 min)Bug D: Single-Source Oracle
// VULNERABLE: only Uniswap spot price
uint price = getUniswapSpotPrice(token); // flash loan manipulatable
// CORRECT: Chainlink primary, Uniswap TWAP as fallback, require close agreementGrep Patterns
# Missing staleness check
grep -rn "latestRoundData" contracts/ -A5 | grep -v "updatedAt\|timestamp"
# Pyth price usage — confidence interval checked?
grep -rn "getPriceUnsafe\|getPrice\b" contracts/ -A8 | grep -v "conf\|confidence"
# TWAP windows — short TWAP flag
grep -rn "secondsAgo\|TWAP\|cardinality" contracts/ -A56. ERC4626 VAULT ATTACKS
Exchange Rate Manipulation (near-empty vault)
// VULNERABLE — first depositor attack:
// 1. Attacker deposits 1 wei → gets 1 share
// 2. Attacker donates large amount directly (transfer, not deposit)
// 3. Exchange rate: 1 share = (1 + donation) assets
// 4. Victim deposits → rounds down to 0 shares → free donation to attacker
// CORRECT: virtual shares (OpenZeppelin v4.9+)
function _decimalsOffset() internal view virtual override returns (uint8) {
return 9; // add 1e9 virtual shares + assets to prevent manipulation
}ERC4626 Transfer (moves shares but not stake/lock records)
// VULNERABLE: shares transferred, but lock records stay with original owner
// → shares stuck, can't redeem → permanent freeze (Belong pattern)
function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) external override {
_transfer(msg.sender, to, amount); // moves shares
// MISSING: transfer lock record from msg.sender to `to`
}Grep Patterns
grep -rn "function transfer\|function transferFrom" contracts/ -A15
grep -rn "function deposit\|function mint\|function withdraw\|function redeem" contracts/ -A107. REENTRANCY
2016–present. CEI pattern prevents it. Still found in DeFi.
Variants
- Single-function: attacker re-enters same function before state updated
- Cross-function: re-enters a sibling function with stale state
- Cross-contract: re-enters via a callback to another protocol
- Read-only: re-enters a view function that returns stale data used by attacker
Root Cause Pattern
// VULNERABLE (effects after interaction):
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount);
(bool success,) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}(""); // INTERACTION first
require(success);
balances[msg.sender] -= amount; // EFFECT after → reentrancy window
}
// CORRECT (CEI — Checks, Effects, Interactions):
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount); // CHECK
balances[msg.sender] -= amount; // EFFECT
(bool success,) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}(""); // INTERACTION last
require(success);
}Grep Patterns
# External calls before state updates
grep -rn "\.call{value\|safeTransfer\|transfer(" contracts/ -B10 | grep -v "require\|revert"
# Missing nonReentrant modifier on critical functions
grep -rn "function withdraw\|function redeem\|function claim" contracts/ -A2 | grep -v "nonReentrant"
# Storage slot for reentrancy guard
grep -rn "nonReentrant\|ReentrancyGuard\|_notEntered" contracts/8. FLASH LOAN ATTACKS
Oracle Manipulation via Flash Loan
// Attack flow:
// 1. Borrow $100M from Aave flash loan
// 2. Dump token in Uniswap pool → crash spot price
// 3. Protocol reads Uniswap spot → undercollateralized loans accepted
// 4. Borrow max against cheap collateral
// 5. Repay flash loan, keep profitsPrice Oracle Sanity Checks (what to look for)
grep -rn "getReserves\|getAmountsOut\|slot0\b" contracts/ -A5
# spot price from reserves = manipulatable with flash loan
# slot0 = Uniswap V3 spot price = manipulatable9. SIGNATURE REPLAY
Missing Nonce
// VULNERABLE:
function permit(address owner, address spender, uint256 value,
uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external {
bytes32 hash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(owner, spender, value, deadline));
// MISSING: nonce not included → same signature usable multiple times
require(ecrecover(hash, v, r, s) == owner);
}Missing Chain ID
// VULNERABLE: signature valid on mainnet AND testnet AND all forks
bytes32 hash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(params));
// MISSING: block.chainid not in hash → works on any chainGrep Patterns
grep -rn "ecrecover\|ECDSA\.recover" contracts/ -B20
# Check: does the signed hash include nonce + chainId + contract address?
grep -rn "nonce\|_nonces\|nonces\[" contracts/10. PROXY / UPGRADE ISSUES
Storage Collision
// Implementation and proxy share storage layout
// Proxy slot 0: _owner
// Implementation slot 0: _initialized
// → writing to _initialized overwrites _ownerUninitialized Implementation
// If implementation can be initialized directly → anyone becomes owner of implementation
// Attack: call initialize() on implementation contract → call upgradeTo() → replace logicdelegatecall to User-Controlled Address
function execute(address target, bytes calldata data) external onlyOwner {
target.delegatecall(data); // target is validated, but what if owner is compromised?
}Grep Patterns
# UUPS initialization protection
grep -rn "function initialize\b\|_disableInitializers\|initializer" contracts/
# Delegate call
grep -rn "delegatecall\b" contracts/ -B3 -A5
# Storage layout — proxy uses EIP-1967 slots?
grep -rn "0x360894\|EIP1967\|_IMPLEMENTATION_SLOT" contracts/FOUNDRY POC TEMPLATE
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
import "forge-std/Test.sol";
import "../src/VulnerableContract.sol";
contract ExploitTest is Test {
VulnerableContract target;
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
address victim = makeAddr("victim");
function setUp() public {
// Fork mainnet at specific block
vm.createSelectFork("mainnet", BLOCK_NUMBER);
// Deploy or load target
target = VulnerableContract(TARGET_ADDRESS);
// Fund accounts
deal(address(token), attacker, INITIAL_BALANCE);
deal(address(token), victim, VICTIM_BALANCE);
}
function test_exploit() public {
console.log("Attacker balance before:", token.balanceOf(attacker));
vm.startPrank(attacker);
// Step 1: Setup conditions
// Step 2: Execute exploit
// Step 3: Verify impact
vm.stopPrank();
console.log("Attacker balance after:", token.balanceOf(attacker));
assertGt(token.balanceOf(attacker), INITIAL_BALANCE, "Exploit failed");
}
}Key Foundry Cheatcodes
vm.prank(address) // next call from address
vm.startPrank(address) // all calls from address until stopPrank()
vm.deal(address, amount) // set ETH balance
deal(token, address, amount) // set ERC20 balance
vm.warp(timestamp) // set block.timestamp
vm.roll(blockNumber) // set block.number
vm.createSelectFork("mainnet", blockNumber) // fork mainnet
vm.expectRevert(bytes) // next call should revert
vm.label(address, "name") // label for trace output
vm.assume(condition) // fuzz: discard inputs where falseRunning Tests
# Run specific test
forge test --match-test test_exploit -vvvv
# Run with fork
forge test --match-test test_exploit -vvvv --fork-url $MAINNET_RPC
# Gas report
forge test --gas-report
# Coverage
forge coverage --report summaryRelated Skills & Chains
meme-coin-audit— When the target is a meme coin / SPL token rather than a DeFi protocol. Workflow primitive: pre-dive kill signals diverge — this skill's "TVL < $500K skip" doesn't apply to meme coins where the rug check (mint authority, freeze authority, LP lock) is the entire audit; route tomeme-coin-auditinstead.triage-validation— When a contract finding is ready to be filed on Immunefi. Workflow primitive: Immunefi has its own report format, but the impact-validated, chain-end-to-end discipline oftriage-validationstill applies; run the 7Q gate against the Foundry PoC before submitting.report-writing— When writing the Immunefi report body. Workflow primitive:report-writing's Immunefi template (with Foundry PoC, root cause code snippet, quantified economic impact) is the body skeleton this skill's findings feed into.offensive-osint— When auditing a protocol's off-chain attack surface (frontend, admin API, RPC gateways). Workflow primitive: on-chain audit is this skill's job; any web2 component of the protocol (web-frontend, admin panel, indexer API) routes tooffensive-osintfor recon.bb-methodology— When deciding whether to dive at all. Workflow primitive: PART 0 ofbb-methodologyconfirms engagement (web3 bug bounty / private audit / smart-contract review); this skill's pre-dive kill signals replace the standard scoring rubric for that engagement type.
Operator Notes (Claude-BugHunter)
Engagement-derived + 2026-specific additions to the vendored foundation. Wisdom from real authorized engagements + Phase 2 verification across this repo's 31+ skill-area live tests. The upstream content covers the WHAT; this layer covers the WHEN-IT-WORKS-vs-WHEN-IT-DOESN'T.
Bug classes still paying in 2026
Flash-loan attacks remain top-paid on Immunefi (top 5 in 2024-2026 by bounty). The economic primitive — borrow $50M, manipulate price oracle, drain pool, repay — keeps reappearing because new protocols keep shipping with composability assumptions that don't hold under flash-loaned imbalance.
Reentrancy IS still paying because new protocols keep shipping with ERC-777 / hooks / callbacks. Don't assume the class is dead — the 2023-2025 paid corpus contains 40+ reentrancy bugs against post-Checks-Effects-Interactions codebases (cross-function reentrancy, read-only reentrancy via view functions called during state-mid-flight).
Oracle manipulation: still paid heavily but harder. Most projects use Chainlink price feeds now; the attack target is the SECONDARY oracle most projects also use (TWAP from a low-liquidity Uniswap V2 pair, the protocol's own internal oracle, a stale fallback path). Audit the failover chain, not just the primary feed.
What's new since the vendored content was written
- EIP-1153 (transient storage) — introduced in 2024. New reentrancy classes: transient-storage reads cached across the same transaction can desync from persistent storage. Audit any
tload/tstoreusage for read-after-external-call. - EIP-7702 (Pectra hard fork 2025) — added EOA-to-smart-account upgrades. New ATO-like primitives via re-delegation: an EOA signed-once can delegate to a contract that the attacker controls, then signature replay across delegations.
- Account abstraction (ERC-4337 bundlers) — paymaster sponsorship abuse and bundler griefing. Paymaster contracts that don't enforce strict sender allowlists drain on first call.
- ZK-rollup bridge bugs — proof-replay across rollups, off-chain prover compromise, sequencer censorship leading to forced-inclusion edge cases.
- LST/LRT depeg dynamics — liquid-staking and liquid-restaking tokens that assume 1:1 peg under loss conditions; oracle assumes peg, market reflects depeg, liquidation logic breaks.
Tool stack for 2026
Foundry remains the test framework. forge test --gas-report --debug for invariant testing; forge fuzz for property-based testing; forge inspect for storage-layout audits. Slither + Echidna for static + fuzz. Mythril for symbolic execution on smaller contracts. tenderly.co for forking + simulation (best UX for replicating attacks against mainnet state).
For Solana: anchor framework, sealevel-attacks corpus (curated PoCs by anchor maintainers), soteria-sec / sec3 scanner. For Move (Aptos, Sui): move-prover, aptos-cli aptos move test.
For cross-chain: hyperlane and LayerZero each have audit-tooling repos; bridge bugs require simulating both endpoints, not just one.
Where pre-dive kill signals matter
TVL under $500K isn't worth the audit time unless the bounty floor is high. Audit firm already covered it = low ROI unless you find what they missed — look at the audit-report scope-exclusion section for what they EXPLICITLY didn't audit (oracles, governance, off-chain components, frontend, the admin path).
Multisig signers > 5 + timelock > 48h = low rug-pull risk; if your finding requires team-malicious assumptions, it's low-impact and likely out of scope per Immunefi's "centralization risk" exclusion. Read the program brief — most Immunefi programs explicitly downgrade or reject findings that assume admin malice.
Reporting discipline
Immunefi requires Foundry PoC. Submission without PoC is auto-rejected. Submission with a PoC that requires manual setup ("first deploy this, then call that") usually gets downgraded — the PoC should be a single forge test invocation that proves the impact, with explicit assertEq on the drained balance / minted token / corrupted state.
Severity claims must use Immunefi's severity matrix exactly; don't invent severities. The matrix gates on direct economic loss percentage of TVL — a critical against a $500K protocol pays differently than a critical against a $500M one. Read the program's specific severity assignment before claiming Critical.
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.

