A Tezos smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Tezos, carried out against the Chain-specific execution environment execution model and written in Michelson / SmartPy / LIGO — covering both the bug classes shared across Chain-specific runtime systems and the failure modes specific to Tezos.
Tezos contracts execute with a distinctive operation model: internal operations produced by a contract are queued and executed after the current one completes, which reverses the reentrancy intuition developers bring from the EVM.
The deferred-operation model means an external call does not immediately hand control away — but it also means state you expect to be updated by a call has not been updated yet when your next line runs. Contracts written with EVM intuitions get this backwards in both directions.
We review the operation and entrypoint model, FA1.2/FA2 token integration, on-chain views and callback patterns, and the upgrade approach in use, plus gas and storage cost handling.
Tezos runs on Chain-specific execution environment, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Tezos contracts are written in Michelson / SmartPy / LIGO. 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.
Internal operations are queued and run after the current execution finishes, so the classic inline reentrancy pattern does not apply — but ordering assumptions still break, frequently in the opposite direction from what EVM developers expect.
SmartPy, LIGO and Michelson. The review works from the compiled Michelson as well as the source, since that is what actually executes.
Yes, including operator permissions and the differences from FA1.2 that break integrator assumptions.
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.