Smart-Contract Security & Audit
Every finding ships with a proof you can run
No hand-wavy severity labels — a control-vs-exploit differential, a live-network fork that reproduces it, and a fuzzing harness that shrinks the break to a deterministic replay.
Most audit reports are a list of assertions you have to trust. We don't ask for trust — every finding comes with a proof: a Foundry differential showing control vs exploit, validation on a forked live network, and a Medusa stateful-fuzzing harness whose broken invariant is shrunk to a replay you can run yourself. We also write counter-probes to disprove our own findings, and discard the ones that don't survive.
Findings you can't reproduce
A severity label and a paragraph. No test, no fork, no way for your engineers to confirm it's real before they rewrite code.
False positives burn the team
Reports padded with theoretical issues train developers to ignore the report — including the one finding that mattered.
Only the happy path is tested
Unit tests assert what should happen. Exploits live in the state nobody enumerated — which is what stateful fuzzing is for.
The auditor reviews their own code
When the team that built it also signs it off, independence is gone and so is the value of the sign-off.
What we build
Reproducible exploit proofs
Control-vs-exploit Foundry differentials and live-network fork validation — a finding you can reproduce, not a paragraph you have to believe.
Stateful fuzzing & invariants
Medusa and property-based fuzzing to surface invariant violations, with the break shrunk to a deterministic replay.
Adversarial self-review
Counter-probe tests written to disprove our own findings, and candidates deliberately discarded — so what's left is real.
Multi-VM coverage
EVM, Move and Solana/Rust — competitive-audit experience across CodeHawks and Code4rena, credited in published contest reports.
What you walk away with
Deliverables, not a slide deck.
- Every finding with a reproducible proof — Foundry control-vs-exploit differential
- Live-network fork validation showing the exploit against real state
- A Medusa stateful-fuzzing harness, with any broken invariant shrunk to a deterministic replay
- Counter-probe tests written to disprove our own findings — and the candidates we discarded
- Severity with impact analysis and a concrete remediation, not just a label
How we engage
Scope
We map the attack surface and the invariants that must hold.
Hunt
Differential exploits and stateful fuzzing, adversarially self-checked.
Prove
Every finding delivered with a reproducible proof-of-concept.
Where it matters most
The situations this is built for.
Pre-deployment gate
Contracts are feature-complete and about to hold real value. This is the last cheap moment to find the bug.
Post-incident review
Something went wrong. We reproduce it on a fork and find whatever else shares the same root cause.
Multi-VM protocols
You ship on more than one chain — EVM, Move and Solana/Rust each fail differently, and need reviewing that way.
Proof
KTHULHU Overmind — our autonomous auditing platform: a three-phase verification pipeline with Halmos, Medusa and hevm over containerised Anvil mainnet forks, and 13,000+ indexed findings.
Questions
Model it. Prove it. Then launch.
Tell us what you're building. We'll come back with a tailored proposal.
Book a technical call