code-maturity-assessor

Code Maturity Assessor

Purpose

Systematically assesses codebase maturity using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework. Provides evidence-based ratings and actionable recommendations.

Framework: Building Secure Contracts - Code Maturity Evaluation v0.1.0

---

How This Works

Phase 1: Discovery

Explores the codebase to understand:

• Project structure and platform
• Contract/module files
• Test coverage
• Documentation availability

Phase 2: Analysis

For each of 9 categories, I'll:

• Search the code for relevant patterns
• Read key files to assess implementation
• Present findings with file references
• Ask clarifying questions about processes I can't see in code
• Determine rating based on criteria

Phase 3: Report

Generates:

• Executive summary
• Maturity scorecard (ratings for all 9 categories)
• Detailed analysis with evidence
• Priority-ordered improvement roadmap

---

Rating System

• Missing (0): Not present/not implemented
• Weak (1): Several significant improvements needed
• Moderate (2): Adequate, can be improved
• Satisfactory (3): Above average, minor improvements
• Strong (4): Exceptional, only small improvements possible

Rating Logic:

• ANY "Weak" criteria → Weak
• NO "Weak" + SOME "Moderate" unmet → Moderate
• ALL "Moderate" + SOME "Satisfactory" met → Satisfactory
• ALL "Satisfactory" + exceptional practices → Strong

---

The 9 Categories

I assess 9 comprehensive categories covering all aspects of code maturity. For detailed criteria, analysis approaches, and rating thresholds, see [ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md](resources/ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md).

Quick Reference:

1. ARITHMETIC

• Overflow protection mechanisms
• Precision handling and rounding
• Formula specifications
• Edge case testing

2. AUDITING

• Event definitions and coverage
• Monitoring infrastructure
• Incident response planning

3. AUTHENTICATION / ACCESS CONTROLS

• Privilege management
• Role separation
• Access control testing
• Key compromise scenarios

4. COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

• Function scope and clarity
• Cyclomatic complexity
• Inheritance hierarchies
• Code duplication

5. DECENTRALIZATION

• Centralization risks
• Upgrade control mechanisms
• User opt-out paths
• Timelock/multisig patterns

6. DOCUMENTATION

• Specifications and architecture
• Inline code documentation
• User stories
• Domain glossaries

7. TRANSACTION ORDERING RISKS

• MEV vulnerabilities
• Front-running protections
• Slippage controls
• Oracle security

8. LOW-LEVEL MANIPULATION

• Assembly usage
• Unsafe code sections
• Low-level calls
• Justification and testing

9. TESTING & VERIFICATION

• Test coverage
• Fuzzing and formal verification
• CI/CD integration
• Test quality

For complete assessment criteria including what I'll analyze, what I'll ask you, and detailed rating thresholds (WEAK/MODERATE/SATISFACTORY/STRONG), see [ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md](resources/ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md).

---

Example Output

When the assessment is complete, you'll receive a comprehensive maturity report including:

• Executive Summary: Overall score, top 3 strengths, top 3 gaps, priority recommendations
• Maturity Scorecard: Table with all 9 categories rated with scores and notes
• Detailed Analysis: Category-by-category breakdown with evidence (file:line references)
• Improvement Roadmap: Priority-ordered recommendations (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM) with effort estimates

For a complete example assessment report, see [EXAMPLE_REPORT.md](resources/EXAMPLE_REPORT.md).

---

Assessment Process

When invoked, I will:

1. Explore codebase

• Find contract/module files
• Identify test files
• Locate documentation

1. Analyze each category

• Search for relevant code patterns
• Read key implementations
• Assess against criteria
• Collect evidence

1. Interactive assessment

• Present my findings with file references
• Ask about processes I can't see in code
• Discuss borderline cases
• Determine ratings together

1. Generate report

• Executive summary
• Maturity scorecard table
• Detailed category analysis with evidence
• Priority-ordered improvement roadmap

---

Rationalizations (Do Not Skip)

| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |

|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|

| "Found some findings, assessment complete" | Assessment requires evaluating ALL 9 categories | Complete assessment of all 9 categories with evidence for each |

| "I see events, auditing category looks good" | Events alone don't equal auditing maturity | Check logging comprehensiveness, testing, incident response processes |

| "Code looks simple, complexity is low" | Visual simplicity masks composition complexity | Analyze cyclomatic complexity, dependency depth, state machine transitions |

| "Not a DeFi protocol, MEV category doesn't apply" | MEV extends beyond DeFi (governance, NFTs, games) | Verify with transaction ordering analysis before declaring N/A |

| "No assembly found, low-level category is N/A" | Low-level risks include external calls, delegatecall, inline assembly | Search for all low-level patterns before skipping category |

| "This is taking too long" | Thorough assessment requires time per category | Complete all 9 categories, ask clarifying questions about off-chain processes |

| "I can rate this without evidence" | Ratings without file:line references = unsubstantiated claims | Collect concrete code evidence for every category assessment |

| "User will know what to improve" | Vague guidance = no action | Provide priority-ordered roadmap with specific improvements and effort estimates |

---

Report Format

For detailed report structure and templates, see [REPORT_FORMAT.md](resources/REPORT_FORMAT.md).

Structure:

1. Executive Summary

• Project name and platform
• Overall maturity (average rating)
• Top 3 strengths
• Top 3 critical gaps
• Priority recommendations

1. Maturity Scorecard

• Table with all 9 categories
• Ratings and scores
• Key findings notes

1. Detailed Analysis

• Per-category breakdown
• Evidence with file:line references
• Gaps and improvement actions

1. Improvement Roadmap

• CRITICAL (immediate)
• HIGH (1-2 months)
• MEDIUM (2-4 months)
• Effort estimates and impact

---

Ready to Begin

Estimated Time: 30-40 minutes

I'll need:

• Access to full codebase
• Your knowledge of processes (monitoring, incident response, team practices)
• Context about the project (DeFi, NFT, infrastructure, etc.)

Let's assess this codebase!