web3-audit skill

by elementalsouls·elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter·4.7k stars·MIT

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.

A100/100content scan

Is the web3-audit skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the web3-audit skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git /tmp/Claude-BugHunter
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Claude-BugHunter/skills/web3-audit ~/.claude/skills/web3-audit

available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

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: maxrealisticpayout = 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, check poke(), 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 value

Root 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

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/ -A10

4. 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 == deadline lock or unlock?
Loop break conditions: break with > vs >=
Array index boundaries: i <= array.length (should be i < array.length)
Amount/balance boundaries: >= amount allows 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/

More skills from elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter

Aapk-redteam-pipelineEnd-to-end Android APK red-team pipeline — automated APK acquisition (Play Store + apkpure + apkmirror fallback), jadx decompilation, secret/URL/JWT/Firebase grep, pinned-cert extraction, exported-component enumeration, Frida runtime instrumentation templates, intent-injection probes. Built from an authorized external red-team engagement where 7 APKs were pulled manually, 4 download attempts truncated, and a hardcoded JWT + 30 internal API endpoints were recovered from one of the apps. Use when target has a mobile app catalogue (Play Store developer page), when you find an APK URL hosted on a web server, or when post-recon mentions "mobile app" in scope.
Fbb-local-toolkitLocal-tooling companion to the bug-bounty orchestrator — carries the SAME complete bug-bounty workflow, but reach for THIS variant when you also need to resolve where tools, wordlists, and clones are installed on the local machine (jhaddix, SecLists, trufflehog, ffuf, dalfox, ghauri); for pure orchestration/routing use the bug-bounty skill. Workflow it covers — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use when you need the local install path of a tool / wordlist / clone for a hunt, or as the full-workflow variant when operating from this local toolkit; for general routing use the bug-bounty skill. 中文触发词：漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Abb-methodologyUse at the START of any bug bounty hunting session, when switching targets, or when feeling lost about what to do next. Master orchestrator that combines the 5-phase non-linear hunting workflow with the critical thinking framework (developer psychology, anomaly detection, What-If experiments). Routes to all other skills based on current hunting phase. Also use when asking "what should I do next" or "where am I in the process."
Fbug-bountyComplete bug bounty workflow — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use for ANY bug bounty task — starting a new target, doing recon, hunting specific vulns, auditing source code, testing AI features, validating findings, or writing reports. 中文触发词：漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Abugcrowd-reportingBugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.
Acloud-iam-deepCloud IAM red-team attack chain across AWS, Azure, GCP — focused on EXTERNAL exploitation paths and post-credential-discovery privilege analysis. Covers IAM enumeration (aws iam, az role, gcloud iam), STS/AssumeRole chaining, Azure Managed Identity abuse (via SSRF/leak), GCP service account JSON abuse, IMDSv1/v2 attacks via SSRF, K8s ServiceAccount token privilege analysis once held (token discovery / cluster exposure is owned by hunt-k8s), role-trust-policy confused-deputy, cross-account assume-role enumeration, IAM privilege escalation patterns (24+ AWS, 8+ Azure, 6+ GCP), and AWS Cognito Identity Pool unauthenticated-role attack chain (GetId → GetCredentialsForIdentity → IAM role abuse). Built for the case where recon yields a credential (key, JSON, token) and you need to know what it grants and how to escalate. Use when an AWS key / Azure secret / GCP service account JSON / K8s SA token surfaces from a code repo, JS bundle, APK, breach corpus, or SSRF chain.
Centerprise-vpn-attackExternal SSL VPN / remote-access appliance attack matrix — Cisco ASA/AnyConnect, Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS, Citrix NetScaler/ADC, Palo Alto GlobalProtect, Pulse Secure / Ivanti Connect Secure, SonicWall, F5 Big-IP. Covers version fingerprinting, CVE matrix (2018-2026), AAA backend identification, default credentials, configuration-disclosure paths, pre-auth RCE/SSRF/path-traversal exploits where applicable. Built from authorized-engagement Cisco ASA testing plus 2024-2026 enterprise VPN CVE landscape. Use whenever the target's perimeter exposes any SSL VPN appliance or remote-access gateway — these are the most common initial-access points in 2024-2026 actor TTPs.
Aevidence-hygieneEvidence-capture and PoC-redaction discipline for bug-bounty submissions: cookie redaction protocol (which fields to mask, Preview annotation / Burp panel hiding / DevTools workflow), PII black-bar discipline (what to mask in other-user data — names, emails, phones, faces — vs what is safe to leave — usernames, trace IDs, request bodies), HAR file sanitization (jq filters for Cookie/Set-Cookie/Authorization headers), Burp Repeater/Intruder screenshot hygiene (hide request body, show only Results table for rate-limit attacks), Chrome DevTools Console PoC patterns (credentials include so cookies are not echoed, labeled console.log), screenshot capture order, filename conventions, post-submission rotation hygiene. Use BEFORE any PoC screenshot, BEFORE attaching a HAR, or whenever preparing evidence with session cookies or other-user PII. Pairs with bugcrowd-reporting and report-writing.
Ahunt-api-misconfigHunt API security misconfiguration — mass assignment, prototype pollution, HTTP verb tampering. Mass assignment: send {is_admin:true, role:admin, verified:true} on profile/account/reset endpoints — server blindly applies. JWT signature/crypto forging (alg:none, key confusion, kid/jku) is owned by hunt-jwt-crypto; this skill covers only non-crypto JWT handling. Prototype pollution: __proto__ injection in JSON merge / Object.assign / lodash _.merge → polluted prototype reaches sink (RCE in Node, XSS in browser). HTTP verb: GET-bypass-CSRF, X-HTTP-Method-Override, TRACE enabled. Detection: API responses with extra fields, JWTs in headers (decode at jwt.io). CORS misconfiguration (reflect-any-origin, null origin, subdomain-regex bypass, postMessage) is owned by hunt-cors. Use when hunting API misconfigs, mass-assignment, prototype pollution (JWT crypto → hunt-jwt-crypto).
Ahunt-aspnetHunt ASP.NET-specific surface — ViewState deserialization (signed-only vs encrypted), machineKey recovery, dual-parser MAC-bypass anti-pattern, request-validator bypass, trace.axd/elmah.axd disclosure, load-balanced ViewState cross-node failures, SafeControl enumeration via reflection, customErrors mode=Off stack-trace leaks, classic Webforms .aspx/.asmx/.svc surface. Built for ASP.NET Webforms + WCF + SharePoint farms.
Ahunt-atoHunt account takeover taxonomy — 9 distinct paths to ATO, plus chains. Paths: (1) password reset flaws (host-header injection redirects token, predictable/numeric token, Referer leak, no-expiry/reuse), (2) email change without re-auth, (3) OAuth account-link CSRF, (4) MFA bypass (per hunt-mfa-bypass), (5) session fixation, (6) JWT manipulation (forge token to another identity; crypto details → hunt-jwt-crypto), (7) password change without step-up (chain with login timing/length oracle), (8) social-recovery / security-question brute-force, (9) SSO subdomain takeover at OAuth redirect_uri. Chains: cookie theft + password oracle + no step-up = persistent ATO; lax redirect_uri = auth-code theft; dangling-CNAME takeover at redirect_uri = ATO. Validate: demonstrate real takeover of test account B from attacker A's session; OOB/Collaborator confirm blind token-leak steps. Use when hunting ATO chains, testing password reset / email change / MFA / OAuth / session / JWT, or chaining primitives toward Critical.
Ahunt-auth-bypassHunting skill for auth bypass vulnerabilities. Built from 12 public bug bounty reports across SAML XSW / parser-differential (GitHub Enterprise CVE-2025-25291/25292), SAML signature stripping (Uber, Rocket.Chat, samlify CVE-2025-47949), SAML domain enforcement bypass via control characters (HackerOne 2024), partner-portal cross-IdP assertion reuse (Slack), WordPress XMLRPC bypassing SSO (Uber), JWT alg-confusion HS256/RS256 (Jitsi), JWT signature-validation skip (Linktree, Newspack), and token-audience confusion (Argo CD CVE-2023-22482). For standalone JWT signature/crypto forging (alg:none, key confusion, kid/jku) see hunt-jwt-crypto; this skill covers JWT only inside SSO/SAML/token-trust bypass chains. SAML assertion-layer attacks (XSW, comment injection, signature stripping, XXE-in-assertion) are owned by hunt-saml; this skill owns the broader cross-protocol auth-bypass taxonomy. Use when hunting auth bypass — see the Legacy-Protocol Matrix for branded-UI vs legacy-endpoint patterns.

All agent skills → · MCP servers