Smart contracts / ZK / wallets / exchanges
Taichi audits protocol logic, asset flows, and the integration boundaries where individually correct components can still produce a critical failure.
Manual, invariant-led review of EVM, Solana, Move, CosmWasm, and Cairo systems where asset accounting and state transitions are the core risk.
Review of verifier wiring, proof-dependent transitions, circuit assumptions, and the gap between what a proof establishes and what a contract enforces.
End-to-end review of signing flows, APIs, exchange or wallet backends, and custody-adjacent boundaries that cannot be understood from contracts alone.
Focused review for adapters, callbacks, wrappers, migrations, token edge cases, and changes that alter the assumptions between deployed components.
The review starts with a defined commit and includes one focused review of agreed fixes submitted within the remediation window.
Send the target repository, chain, launch window, and the behavior that matters most. We normally respond within 24–48 hours.
We review code size, complexity, dependencies, documentation, and schedule before proposing coverage, staffing, timing, and commercial terms.
At least two researchers map assets, actors, trust boundaries, and invariants, then challenge dangerous paths independently and together.
Findings include impact, root cause, affected paths, and actionable remediation. Critical questions are discussed during the review, not saved for the end.
One focused review of fixes submitted within the agreed remediation window is included for in-scope findings.
Still changing architecture or unsure what to scope? Send the current design and launch constraints; we will tell you what needs to stabilize before a review is useful.
These inputs let us estimate the work accurately and spend review time on system risk rather than reconstructing basic context.
Repository or code archive and target commit
Architecture overview, specifications, and intended invariants
Target chain, compiler, deployment, and test instructions
External dependencies and privileged roles
Known limitations, prior reviews, and unresolved concerns
Code-freeze, remediation, and launch dates
Pricing is scoped from complexity, review surface, dependencies, documentation quality, staffing, and schedule. Share a stable commit or representative repository so we can give a defensible proposal instead of a misleading flat rate.
The review window depends on the system and current availability. We usually confirm fit and next steps within 24–48 hours, then include the proposed review and remediation windows in the scope.
Confidentiality and report publication are agreed before kickoff. If the repository or design is sensitive, email us before sharing confidential material.
A stable target commit is essential for reliable coverage. Necessary changes can be discussed during the review, but material feature changes may need to be separately scoped.
Yes. One focused review of fixes submitted within the agreed remediation window is included for in-scope findings. Larger redesigns, later rounds, or newly introduced scope may require a separate estimate.
No credible audit can make that guarantee. An audit reduces risk within a defined scope and time window; testing, monitoring, access controls, incident response, and responsible launch practices remain part of the security model.
Next step
We will reply with fit, availability, missing scope information, and a clear path to a proposal.