Detailed Instructions

Begin by reading the executive summary to grasp the audit's key conclusions and overall risk posture. Immediately note the audit scope, which defines the specific commit hash, contract files, and functions reviewed. A mismatch between the deployed code and the audited commit is a critical red flag.

• Sub-step 1: Verify the repository URL and commit hash (e.g., a1b2c3d) match the live deployment.
• Sub-step 2: Check the list of audited contracts (e.g., UniswapV3Pool.sol, Router.sol) against your project's core system.
• Sub-step 3: Confirm the audit timeline and note if it was a time-boxed engagement or a continuous review.

textCopy
Audited Commit: main@a1b2c3d
Scope: src/core/*.sol, src/periphery/Router.sol
Excluded: src/test/, legacy/V1Migrator.sol

Tip: An audit of outdated code provides no security guarantees for the live deployment.

Detailed Instructions

Scrutinize each finding in detail. Pay closest attention to Critical and High severity issues, which often involve direct fund loss or contract control. Understand the CVSS score or the auditor's custom severity scale. Don't just read the title; study the Proof of Concept (PoC) and the recommended fix.

• Sub-step 1: Triage all findings by severity. A report with multiple Highs/Criticals indicates fundamental problems.
• Sub-step 2: For each major finding, trace the vulnerability path described in the PoC. For example, a reentrancy issue in a withdraw() function.
• Sub-step 3: Evaluate the contextual risk. A medium-severity issue in a rarely used admin function may be less urgent.

solidityCopy
// Example High Severity Finding: Missing Access Control
function setFeeReceiver(address _newReceiver) external {
    feeReceiver = _newReceiver; // No `onlyOwner` modifier
}

Tip: Check if findings are duplicated under different IDs, which can inflate the perceived issue count.

Detailed Instructions

The value of an audit is directly tied to its methodology. Look for descriptions of manual review, static analysis (using tools like Slither or Mythril), dynamic analysis (fuzzing with Echidna or Foundry), and formal verification. Review the test coverage metrics, if provided, to see what percentage of code paths were exercised.

• Sub-step 1: Identify which tools were used. A report citing only automated tools lacks deep manual review.
• Sub-step 2: Look for evidence of fuzzing invariants. For example:
• Sub-step 3: Check if the audit included review of economic assumptions and integration risks with external protocols like Chainlink oracles.

solidityCopy
// An invariant tested via fuzzing
function check_solvency_invariant(address user) public {
    assert(userBalances[user] <= totalContractAssets);
}

Tip: A strong methodology section details specific property tests and the scope of manual code review sessions.

Detailed Instructions

Important details are often in the appendices. Examine the raw output from static analyzers, which may contain lower-severity warnings not in the main report. Review gas optimization suggestions; while not security issues, they impact economic viability. Scrutinize any code quality or centralization risk notes about admin keys or upgradeability controls.

• Sub-step 1: Parse the static analysis output for unchecked return values (low) or compiler version warnings (informational).
• Sub-step 2: Assess gas recommendations, such as using unchecked blocks for safe math or caching state variables.
• Sub-step 3: Critically evaluate centralization risks: Are timelocks suggested? Is multi-sig governance mentioned?

solidityCopy
// Gas Optimization Suggestion
for (uint256 i; i < array.length; ++i) { // Pre-increment is cheaper
    total += array[i];
}

Tip: Centralization findings (e.g., owner can upgrade arbitrarily) are often classified as Medium but can be Critical in practice.

Detailed Instructions

An audit is not a one-time stamp. You must track the remediation status of every finding. A quality report will include a mitigation timeline or follow-up section. For any finding marked "Fixed" or "Resolved," verify the code change in a pull request. Major changes to fix Critical issues often necessitate a limited re-audit of the affected components.

• Sub-step 1: Map each finding ID (e.g., H-01) to a GitHub commit or pull request that addresses it.
• Sub-step 2: Confirm that fixes do not introduce new attack vectors or break core invariants.
• Sub-step 3: For issues acknowledged but not fixed ("Accepted Risk"), document the business rationale and any contingency plans.

textCopy
Finding H-01 (Reentrancy in withdraw):
Status: Fixed
PR #124: Added Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern.
Commit: main@e4f5g6h

Tip: Maintain a public remediation log to build trust with users, showing all issues have been addressed or accounted for.

Detailed Instructions

Start by reviewing the severity classification (Critical, High, Medium, Low, Informational) provided in the report. Critical findings, such as reentrancy or access control flaws that could lead to fund loss, must be addressed first. Create a remediation roadmap that groups related issues, like multiple gas optimizations, to be fixed together.

• Sub-step 1: Map each finding to its corresponding function and line numbers in your codebase.
• Sub-step 2: Assess exploit prerequisites and potential impact to understand the attack surface.
• Sub-step 3: Determine dependencies; fixing a core library function may resolve multiple downstream issues.

Tip: Use the auditor's proof-of-concept (PoC) code to replicate the issue locally, ensuring you fully understand the vulnerability before attempting a fix.

Detailed Instructions

Apply the fixes following the auditor's recommendations and established secure coding patterns. For a reentrancy vulnerability, implement the Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern or use ReentrancyGuard from OpenZeppelin. For an incorrect access control issue, rigorously validate msg.sender permissions with modifiers.

• Sub-step 1: Write the fix in a dedicated feature branch, referencing the audit finding ID (e.g., SCA-2024-001).
• Sub-step 2: Adhere to the principle of least privilege; avoid granting excessive roles or permissions.
• Sub-step 3: Ensure fixes do not introduce new side effects or break existing functionality.

solidityCopy
// Fix for a reentrancy vulnerability using a mutex guard
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/security/ReentrancyGuard.sol";

contract Vault is ReentrancyGuard {
    function withdraw(uint amount) external nonReentrant {
        // Checks
        require(balance[msg.sender] >= amount, "Insufficient balance");
        // Effects
        balance[msg.sender] -= amount;
        // Interactions
        (bool success, ) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}("");
        require(success, "Transfer failed");
    }
}

Tip: Keep changes minimal and focused. Overly complex refactoring can obscure the fix and introduce new bugs.

Detailed Instructions

Before returning to the auditors, perform thorough internal verification. This involves unit testing, integration testing, and re-running the specific attack vectors outlined in the report. Use a development framework like Foundry or Hardhat to create targeted tests.

• Sub-step 1: Write a test that reproduces the exact exploit scenario from the audit PoC; it should now fail.
• Sub-step 2: Run your full test suite to confirm no regression in other contract functions.
• Sub-step 3: Perform fuzz testing or invariant testing on the modified components to uncover edge cases.

solidityCopy
// Foundry test verifying a reentrancy fix
function test_Withdraw_NotReentrant() public {
    vm.startPrank(attacker);
    // Deploy a malicious contract that attempts reentrancy
    ReentrancyAttack attackerContract = new ReentrancyAttack(address(vault));
    attackerContract.attack();
    // Assert the attack failed and state is correct
    assertEq(vault.balance(attacker), 0);
    vm.stopPrank();
}

Tip: Measure gas usage before and after fixes, especially for optimizations, to quantify the improvement.

Detailed Instructions

Prepare a formal remediation submission. This should include a diff file (e.g., git diff main..fix-branch) highlighting all changes, a detailed document mapping each finding to the specific commit hash and code change, and the results of your internal verification tests.

• Sub-step 1: Create a comprehensive summary table listing Finding ID, Status (Fixed/Mitigated), Commit Hash, and a brief description of the fix.
• Sub-step 2: Provide the auditors with clear instructions to set up and run your test suite to verify the fixes.
• Sub-step 3: For findings marked as "Mitigated" rather than fully fixed, provide a clear risk assessment explaining the residual risk and any compensating controls.

Tip: Be proactive. If you disagree with a finding or propose an alternative mitigation, include a technical justification in your submission for the auditor to evaluate.

Detailed Instructions

Upon receiving the verification report, carefully review the auditor's assessment of each fix. The report will typically classify findings as Resolved, Partially Resolved, or Not Resolved. For any finding not fully resolved, you must restart the remediation cycle.

• Sub-step 1: Confirm all Critical and High severity issues are marked as Resolved. Do not proceed if they are not.
• Sub-step 2: Evaluate any new, lower-severity issues the auditors may have identified during re-review.
• Sub-step 3: Once all issues are addressed, obtain the final attestation letter or verification seal from the auditing firm. This document is crucial for stakeholder confidence.

Tip: Archive the final audit report, verification report, and all remediation evidence. This forms a critical part of your project's security provenance and is often required for insurance or institutional review.