A Optimism smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Optimism, carried out against the EVM-equivalent optimistic rollup execution model and written in Solidity — covering both the bug classes shared across OP Stack rollup systems and the failure modes specific to Optimism.
Optimism is the reference OP Stack chain, and the Superchain model means a contract deployed here may end up interacting with sibling chains that share a security model but not a state. That interaction surface is where audits earn their keep.
The core EVM review on Optimism is standard. What is not standard is the cross-domain surface: messages from L1, messages from sibling Superchain rollups, the withdrawal proving and finalisation two-step, and fault-proof assumptions that affect how quickly value can actually leave.
We review your contracts against the OP Stack predeploys and messaging contracts as deployed, not as documented, and simulate withdrawal and message-failure paths end to end.
Optimism runs on EVM-equivalent optimistic rollup, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Optimism contracts are written in Solidity. See our Solidity audit methodology.
We fix a commit hash, agree the in-scope contracts and read your architecture docs, then build a threat model: who the actors are, what the trust boundaries are, and which invariants must never break. Nothing is reviewed against assumptions we have not written down.
Line-by-line review by at least two auditors working independently, focused on authorisation, accounting, upgrade paths, external integrations and the gap between what the code does and what the documentation claims it does. Most critical findings come from this phase, not from tooling.
Static analysers appropriate to the language, plus property-based fuzzing and invariant testing to push the system into states no unit test covers. Tooling is used to widen coverage, never to replace the manual pass.
Candidate findings are proven on a forked network with a working proof of concept. We report what an attacker can actually do and what it costs them, not a theoretical severity label.
Every finding gets a severity rating, reproduction steps, the affected code, the impact in concrete terms and a specific remediation. You get a draft for discussion before anything is finalised.
We re-test every remediation against the original proof of concept and check that the fix has not opened a new path. The final report is yours to publish.
Yes — sender verification, address aliasing, message failure and replay paths, and the assumptions your authorisation logic makes about where a call came from.
Any contract or integration treating an L2 withdrawal as final before it is finalised on L1 has a solvency gap. We check both the contract logic and the operational assumptions around it.
Yes, including configuration: sequencer setup, custom gas token, bridge deployment and any modifications to the stack itself.
A repository or contract address, a commit hash to freeze the scope, whatever architecture or spec documentation exists, and a point of contact who can answer design questions. If documentation is thin we will write our understanding of the system back to you and ask you to confirm it — that step alone catches design-level bugs.
A single token contract is 24–48 hours. A typical dApp or mid-sized protocol runs one to two weeks. Large DeFi systems, L2s, bridges and ZK circuits are scoped per project after we have seen the code. We will give you a fixed timeline with the quote, not an estimate that moves.
Yes. Fix review is part of the engagement, not an upsell. We re-run the original proof of concept against your patched code and confirm the fix has not introduced a new path.
Send the repository and a commit hash through the contact form, message @bugtester25 on Telegram, or book a 30-minute scoping call. 200+ protocols audited · $4B+ secured · 0 hacks post-audit. Prefer email? info@safeedges.in.