Smart Contract Audit — A smart contract audit is a time-boxed security review of on-chain code, carried out before deployment, that identifies logic flaws, economic vulnerabilities and implementation bugs an attacker could use to drain or freeze funds — and provides a remediation plan for each one.
Most smart contract losses are not caused by exotic cryptography. They are caused by ordinary mistakes in extraordinary contexts: an access-control check on the wrong function, an accounting update that happens after an external call, a price read from a spot AMM, a rounding direction that favours the caller. Code that behaves correctly in your test suite behaves differently when an attacker controls the call order, the block, the token and the counterparty.
Our review works from your invariants outward. We write down what must always be true about your system — solvency, share price monotonicity, access boundaries, supply conservation — and then spend the engagement trying to break each one, with two auditors working independently before comparing findings. Tooling widens coverage; it does not decide severity. Every exploitable finding ships with a working proof of concept on a forked network so you can see the loss, not just read a label.
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.
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | Direct loss of funds or permanent freezing of assets, exploitable by any actor. |
| High | Loss of funds or protocol insolvency under realistic conditions, or requiring a privileged actor to misbehave. |
| Medium | Broken protocol behaviour, denial of service, or value leakage that does not directly drain the contract. |
| Low | Edge-case incorrectness with limited impact, or an issue requiring implausible preconditions. |
| Informational | Code quality, gas efficiency, documentation mismatch and defence-in-depth suggestions. |
Single token contract: starts from $999, report in 24–48 hours. dApp, GameFi or RWA project: starts from $2,999. DeFi protocol, L2 / rollup, Bridge, ZK circuit, AI agent / MCP: scoped per project after we have seen the code.
A time-boxed, expert review of on-chain code that finds logic flaws, economic vulnerabilities and implementation bugs before an attacker does, and hands you a severity-rated report with a fix for each finding and a re-test after you patch.
A single token contract starts from $999 with the report back in 24–48 hours. dApp, GameFi and RWA projects start from $2,999. DeFi protocols, L2s, bridges, ZK circuits and AI agents are scoped per project — send us the repository and you get a fixed quote, not a range.
When the code is feature-complete and tested, but before you deploy or lock the code for a launch. Auditing a moving codebase wastes half the engagement re-reading changed files. If you are shipping continuously, a retainer works better than a one-off review.
No, and no honest firm will tell you otherwise. An audit is a time-boxed review by experts: it dramatically reduces risk and catches the classes of bug that cause most losses, but it cannot prove the absence of every bug. That is why we also recommend monitoring, a bug bounty and staged rollouts with caps.
Yes. Live-code reviews are common, and they change the priorities: we look first at what can be exploited right now and what can be fixed without a migration, then at what needs an upgrade path.
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.