Use when auditing an interactive or non-interactive zero-knowledge proof/argument, proof of knowledge, Fiat-Shamir transform, SNARK/STARK, polynomial commitment, aggregation, recursion, folding, or IVC system.
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jiayaoqijia/cryptoskill --skill riaomike-zkp-security-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Riaomike Zkp Security Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jiayaoqijia-riaomike-zkp-security-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: zkp-security-review
description: Use when auditing an interactive or non-interactive zero-knowledge proof/argument, proof of knowledge, Fiat-Shamir transform, SNARK/STARK, polynomial commitment, aggregation, recursion, folding, or IVC system.
---
# ZKP Security Review
Audit the end-to-end proof-system claim. Keep completeness, soundness, knowledge, zero knowledge, setup, composition, and efficiency as independent dimensions.
## Scope
In scope: relation/transcript/setup, security definitions, reductions/extractors/simulators, Fiat-Shamir ROM/QROM, polynomial commitments, arithmetization, aggregation/recursion/folding/IVC, parameters/errors, and proof-system costs.
Out of scope: accepting protocol security from one local lemma, implementation side-channel certification, or inventing missing security proofs.
## Required Inputs
- protocol/specification and exact proof version;
- relation/language, instance/witness, transcript and public parameters;
- claimed properties, adversary, setup/model, assumptions, and parameter set;
- dependent primitives/proofs and intended composition/deployment.
## Success Criteria
- Each property has its own definition, adversary/model, error, proof status, and limitation.
- Setup/trapdoor/updatability/transparency assumptions are explicit.
- Fiat-Shamir transcript binding, oracle model, query loss, and classical/quantum status are checked.
- Composition, aggregation, recursion/folding/IVC implication steps are explicit.
- Parameter, soundness/knowledge/correctness errors and reduction losses are accumulated.
- Costs separate constraints, prover/verifier, proof size, setup, online, amortized, communication, memory, and operation model.
- End-to-end verdict stops at the first unsupported implication.
## Failure Modes
- Missing relation/security definition: block the corresponding verdict.
- Proof sketch or inaccessible dependency: mark property unverified.
- ROM-to-QROM, HVZK-to-ZK, soundness-to-knowledge, or component-to-system upgrade: reject without checked transformation.
- Incomplete parameters/error terms: give symbolic review only.
- Unavailable implementation/artifact: do not verify measured costs or operational setup.
Never fabricate a property proof, extractor/simulator, oracle argument, parameter, benchmark, or trusted-setup fact.
## Workflow
1. Apply [protocol.md](references/protocol.md) to freeze the formal object and property matrix.
2. Build dependency and implication graphs from primitives to system claims.
3. Audit Fiat-Shamir/model, composition/advanced construction, parameters/errors, and costs.
4. Return per-property and end-to-end findings with evidence status.
5. Use [evaluation-scenarios.md](references/evaluation-scenarios.md) for future independent evaluation.
## Output Contract
Return: object/version; relation/setup/transcript; property matrix; assumption/dependency graph; Fiat-Shamir/model findings; aggregation/recursion/folding findings; parameter/error ledger; cost ledger; blocking/major/minor findings; per-property verdicts; bounded end-to-end conclusion.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!