Code Maturity Assessor

---
name: code-maturity-assessor
description: Systematic code maturity assessment using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework. Analyzes codebase for arithmetic safety, auditing practices, access controls, complexity, decentralization, documentation, MEV risks, low-level code, and testing, then produces a scorecard with evidence-based ratings and a priority-ordered roadmap. Use when assessing or scoring the maturity of a smart contract or blockchain codebase, producing a maturity scorecard or evaluation, or judging how mature, well-tested, or well-documented such a project is against a rubric.
---

# 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

2. **Analyze each category**
   - Search for relevant code patterns
   - Read key implementations
   - Assess against criteria
   - Collect evidence

3. **Interactive assessment**
   - Present my findings with file references
   - Ask about processes I can't see in code
   - Discuss borderline cases
   - Determine ratings together

4. **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

2. **Maturity Scorecard**
   - Table with all 9 categories
   - Ratings and scores
   - Key findings notes

3. **Detailed Analysis**
   - Per-category breakdown
   - Evidence with file:line references
   - Gaps and improvement actions

4. **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!