0x-shashi/skills/report-writer

Report Writer Skill

Generate professional audit reports with structured findings, severity classifications, proof-of-concept code, and actionable recommendations. Based on industry standards from Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Cyfrin, Spearbit, and Code4rena.

---

Report Components

| Component | Purpose | Length | |-----------|---------|--------| | Executive Summary | Non-technical overview for stakeholders | 1-2 paragraphs | | Scope | Files/contracts reviewed, commit hash, exclusions | Table | | Methodology | How the audit was conducted | 1 paragraph | | Finding Summary | Table of all findings by severity | Table | | Detailed Findings | Full write-up of each finding | Per finding | | Centralization Risks | Admin/owner privilege analysis | Section | | Gas Optimizations | Optional efficiency improvements | List | | Appendix | Tools used, out-of-scope items | Section |

---

Severity Classification

Based on the industry-standard Likelihood × Impact matrix:

| | Low Impact | Medium Impact | High Impact | |---|---|---|---| | High Likelihood | Medium | High | Critical | | Medium Likelihood | Low | Medium | High | | Low Likelihood | Info | Low | Medium |

Likelihood Assessment

| Level | Criteria | |-------|----------| | High | Exploitable by anyone, no special conditions, low cost | | Medium | Requires specific conditions, timing, or moderate skill | | Low | Requires unlikely conditions, high cost, or privileged access |

Impact Assessment

| Level | Criteria | |-------|----------| | High | Direct loss of funds, protocol takeover, permanent DoS | | Medium | Conditional fund loss, temporary DoS, incorrect state | | Low | Inconvenience, minor gas waste, edge case behavior |

---

Finding ID Convention

| Prefix | Severity | Example | |--------|----------|----------| | C | Critical | C-01, C-02 | | H | High | H-01, H-02 | | M | Medium | M-01, M-02 | | L | Low | L-01, L-02 | | I | Informational | I-01, I-02 | | G | Gas Optimization | G-01, G-02 |

---

Writing Quality Standards

Good Finding Characteristics

1. Specific title — Describes the vulnerability, not just the location

   • BAD: "Issue in withdraw function"
   • GOOD: "Missing reentrancy guard in withdraw() allows ETH drain via malicious token callback"

2. Clear description — A reader unfamiliar with the code can understand the issue

3. Precise location — Contract name, function, line numbers

4. Demonstrated impact — Concrete scenario showing what an attacker achieves

5. Working PoC — For Critical/High, a test case that proves exploitability

6. Actionable fix — Specific code change, not "fix the issue"

---

Resources

• Finding Templates
• Report Template

Workflows

• Report Workflow