Audits for code that cannot be patched after deployment
Manual review, invariant testing, and economic analysis of Solidity and Rust contracts — with a public report and a verified fix cycle before mainnet.
What an audit covers here
Automated tools find the easy classes of bug. The findings that matter come from reading the code against its economic intent.
Line-by-line manual review
Two engineers reading independently against the specification, because the expensive bugs are logic errors, not missing modifiers.
Economic and incentive analysis
Oracle manipulation, MEV exposure, liquidation paths, and reward maths modelled under adversarial rather than expected conditions.
Invariant and fuzz testing
Foundry invariants and property-based fuzzing that search the state space far past what hand-written unit tests reach.
Access control and upgradeability
Proxy patterns, storage layout collisions, admin key scope, timelocks, and what a compromised multisig could actually do.
Integration and composability risk
How your contracts behave when the protocols they depend on pause, get exploited, or change their assumptions.
Report and verified fixes
Severity-ranked findings with proof-of-concept exploits, then a re-review confirming each fix landed without introducing new issues.
From code freeze to a published report
Four phases across two to four weeks depending on contract size and complexity.
Scoping and specification
Commit hash frozen, lines of code counted, and the intended behaviour of every privileged function written down and agreed.
Independent review
Two auditors work separately through the codebase, with automated analysis running alongside rather than in place of them.
Findings and proof of concept
Each finding gets severity, impact, and where possible an executable exploit test, so nothing is disputed on interpretation.
Fix review and report
Your remediation commits re-reviewed, residual risk documented, and a final report you can publish alongside the deployment.
Chains and tooling we audit across
EVM and Solana ecosystems, with the analysis tooling that supports manual review rather than replacing it.
When an audit is required
Any contract that will custody value, and several situations that arrive before that point.
Before mainnet deployment
The obvious one. Immutable code holding user funds needs an independent read before it is irreversible.
Before an upgrade
A new implementation behind an existing proxy, where storage layout and initialisation are the highest-risk surface.
Diligence for investors or listings
A published report from an independent reviewer, required by funds, exchanges, and increasingly by insurers.
After an incident elsewhere
A protocol you integrate with was exploited, and you need to know whether the same class of bug reaches your contracts.
What the audit buys you
In a domain where a single logic error can drain a treasury, the return is straightforward.
Catastrophic loss avoided
One prevented critical finding pays for the engagement many times over, which is the entire economic case.
Credibility with users and capital
A published report from an independent reviewer is now table stakes for TVL, exchange listings, and institutional participation.
A stronger internal test suite
The invariants and fuzz harnesses we write are handed over, so your CI keeps enforcing them after we finish.
Documented residual risk
What we could not fully verify is stated plainly, so your team makes deployment decisions with the real picture.
Audited contracts in production
A staking platform taken through audit and deployed with no critical findings outstanding.
Web3 • DeFi
ChainVault
A DeFi staking platform with audited smart contracts handling millions in assets.
Read Case Study →Why teams choose us for smart contract audits
Auditors who also build protocols, and who say plainly what an audit does not cover.
Learn more about us →Two independent reviewers
Findings are compared only after both passes are complete, which avoids the anchoring that makes a second reviewer redundant.
Exploits, not opinions
Where a finding is exploitable we write the test that proves it, so severity is demonstrated rather than argued.
We build in this domain
Our auditors ship protocol code themselves, so recommendations account for gas, maintainability, and what is realistic to change.
Honest about the limits
An audit reduces risk, it does not eliminate it. We state the assumptions and the unverified surface rather than implying a guarantee.
Questions protocol teams ask
Timing, cost, scope, and what happens after the report is delivered.
How long does an audit take?
How is it priced?
What do you need from us?
Do you re-review after we fix things?
Does an audit guarantee the contract is safe?
Deploying contracts that hold real value?
Send us the repository and we will scope the audit and give you a fixed quote and timeline.
Request an Audit Quote →