{"assessments":[],"deployments":[],"fuzz":[],"identity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"interpretation":"Records acceptance and evidence. Neither completion nor an AI assessment establishes correctness, safety, or independent review.","jobId":"f9a14fbe-569d-444e-b658-769b2ff40998","kind":"shape:chain","nodes":[{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"e41b7d65062468b8c100b1db3dcdc11a854ca52273a9e0749f2ae665413e0a42","dependsOn":["audit_imported_code"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"15128eeb8da9fb5ec13c7964e80f936ddc40e718cc0d455d200435c3dc43d6a7","skillId":"adapt-contract-project","tools":[]},"key":"adapt_contract_project","kind":"code","role":"implement","skillHash":"15128eeb8da9fb5ec13c7964e80f936ddc40e718cc0d455d200435c3dc43d6a7","skillId":"adapt-contract-project","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"9264667bf9ce198ad182c1e47d37e8acaeca61d8c0930a43833415e965329b6e","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","subagents":3,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_economics","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"04d7c61762945479facb50d2b6309e4e8c6c162e5dfd7fd726290bf53fc88b9a","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","subagents":3,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_flow","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"cb47c5a82820413d095d260ace928532fe4aefd3a3e92397b947c8c88e1e3818","dependsOn":[],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"b72293c3366fff3f0b93151bca72cc6cbd189dad31d1ccd1d34dd483f2165a36","skillId":"audit-imported-code","subagents":4,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_imported_code","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"b72293c3366fff3f0b93151bca72cc6cbd189dad31d1ccd1d34dd483f2165a36","skillId":"audit-imported-code","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"4fdbda1431f5eb88641dc69af751d06f43142c0c08907696945e13661863d74d","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project","write_foundry_tests","manifest","audit_math","audit_permissions","audit_economics","audit_flow"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"b89279670f5a00f5d26286edee00c97dd158b997031350a01cafe6e0329ad227","skillId":"audit-judge","subagents":4,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_judge","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"b89279670f5a00f5d26286edee00c97dd158b997031350a01cafe6e0329ad227","skillId":"audit-judge","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"3b25cbb0dd5af8326ff91aca5908c65501757addfc1e752cb2b0f6ab990445d6","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","subagents":3,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_math","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"9ae4c8c90a4f0fb6b9e53e91400ab6f4f15b44f35fd6f73d88b67710cc79779d","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","subagents":3,"tools":[]},"key":"audit_permissions","kind":"code","role":"review","skillHash":"bc5bfc8455464381f2db18badb2b55cf8bec1e535c019349a0378fa990741171","skillId":"audit-specialist","state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"e2d653ca16410430490d9987ddfcc56261a632882a7bad26db11400f2b0aa2d7","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"tools":[]},"key":"manifest","kind":"code","role":"integrate","skillHash":null,"skillId":null,"state":"accepted"},{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"58796ecf6b94a3c7bfde7a31b5307baf4db74e2e3dfc2bcdbd682969df5d58f8","dependsOn":["adapt_contract_project"],"execution":{"network":false,"profile":"foundry","requires":[],"skillHash":"68506fdcd4ed07ed9dcf40cddecfe9a7d7282e399586d1d75a902eca2f5d692b","skillId":"write-foundry-tests","subagents":4,"tools":[]},"key":"write_foundry_tests","kind":"code","role":"tests","skillHash":"68506fdcd4ed07ed9dcf40cddecfe9a7d7282e399586d1d75a902eca2f5d692b","skillId":"write-foundry-tests","state":"accepted"}],"objective":"Launch the GuildWars contract from src/GuildWars.sol on Ethereum Sepolia (chainId 11155111). It is the registry of \"Squeek Guild Wars\", an unofficial community team game for Squeekchain: wallets form guilds, check in once per UTC day, and guilds are scored by the average of their members' points. It holds no SQK, ETH or NFTs, has no owner, no admin, no pause and no proxy. Its only external calls are guarded read-only calls to the official SqueekMining and SqueekStaking contracts.\n\nConstructor arguments, in this order:\n1. mining = 0x2dccb11fcc2defdd188555e45acb52231e82e218 (official SqueekMining proxy)\n2. staking = 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca (official SqueekStaking proxy)\n3. minStakerPower = 1000000000000000000 (1 power unit, about 40 SQK staked)\n\nSource of the addresses: https://docs.squeekchain.com/assets/deployments/sepolia.json (release core-sepolia-20261103). Deploy only this one contract, verify its source on the Sepolia explorer, and do not change foundry.toml. Details and known limitations are in CONTRACT.md in the repository.","parentJobId":null,"planHash":"03cdaa1444e33deae9170fd0a870a063142aec33dd5aad1db7409a31f132e68d","previousHash":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","projectId":"f9a14fbe-569d-444e-b658-769b2ff40998","publication":{"commit":null,"deliveredAt":null,"repoUrl":"https://github.com/identity-md-launches/launch-3141-launch-guildwars-contract-src-guildwars"},"receiptIdentity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"registry":"0xb6d0a187b050fa5bb0b87033a203f37becf4a775","research":[],"schema":"identitymd-work-v1","signals":[{"agentId":"52590","feedbackHash":"1deaeef619b099689a9ab637cc24d583bb8400e57561d316f4a6fca0108ce156","nodeKey":"adapt_contract_project","submissionHash":"e41b7d65062468b8c100b1db3dcdc11a854ca52273a9e0749f2ae665413e0a42","tag1":"verification:checks","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"53924","feedbackHash":"ec23b7ce6070dc90376296304fb6698389d99455a3ef93a545fdd251cd19d148","nodeKey":"audit_economics","submissionHash":"9264667bf9ce198ad182c1e47d37e8acaeca61d8c0930a43833415e965329b6e","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"51039","feedbackHash":"398f566e342d1caec16a5b6b89ddee681f5ce3b00f7a2b7e67d7c38989b3477b","nodeKey":"audit_flow","submissionHash":"04d7c61762945479facb50d2b6309e4e8c6c162e5dfd7fd726290bf53fc88b9a","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"52162","feedbackHash":"db3a55052b6972d8a305eb28ed1cf1c9df9a18ed398fd153fac6e5feda218db5","nodeKey":"audit_imported_code","submissionHash":"cb47c5a82820413d095d260ace928532fe4aefd3a3e92397b947c8c88e1e3818","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"51041","feedbackHash":"21698575ec2c8ba3d39b74f7e6786a880704d64f0a3e9bc60dfdbb7a283d7e0d","nodeKey":"audit_judge","submissionHash":"4fdbda1431f5eb88641dc69af751d06f43142c0c08907696945e13661863d74d","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"53911","feedbackHash":"0b8d82543ca6ca48de4d84f3653c0398ccfe70f69b89e38e3de4845957808882","nodeKey":"audit_math","submissionHash":"3b25cbb0dd5af8326ff91aca5908c65501757addfc1e752cb2b0f6ab990445d6","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"52082","feedbackHash":"4481b1cc3c0e020d28e26cb7cac2e50d540b4b74b8b68f0ec011900d45629159","nodeKey":"audit_permissions","submissionHash":"9ae4c8c90a4f0fb6b9e53e91400ab6f4f15b44f35fd6f73d88b67710cc79779d","tag1":"review:submission","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"53944","feedbackHash":"38ce8d8885a755d9f7608f1c619795ce51bbcc17d3d4f6c35120858b3ad34954","nodeKey":"manifest","submissionHash":"e2d653ca16410430490d9987ddfcc56261a632882a7bad26db11400f2b0aa2d7","tag1":"verification:checks","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1},{"agentId":"52211","feedbackHash":"49bef8d414bbc8b74235a92f9434acb26d9942bfc0ec86b61b96ab672b710aae","nodeKey":"write_foundry_tests","submissionHash":"58796ecf6b94a3c7bfde7a31b5307baf4db74e2e3dfc2bcdbd682969df5d58f8","tag1":"verification:checks","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1}],"site":null,"snapshotHash":"7aca7cd0803f0cddb4952041efe7998efbaa01eb0bf9f2a7930e7e7c2feffd9a","state":"completed","submissions":[{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"9ab27edcfd62be02","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"claimCaptain() checks only that the caller is a member and that the captain has not checked in for 14 days. It does not require the claimant to have been a member for any time or to have checked in at all. Because join() publishes the invite code in calldata (CONTRACT.md line 32) and recruiting is open by default, any outside wallet can join a guild whose captain is 14 days idle and in the same block become captain, then kick(wallet) every other member (the founder is now an ordinary member and can be kicked), rotate the code and close recruiting. The guild's name, tier points and war history pass to the stranger and the kicked members lose their current-season points (_removeMember zeroes them). Active members who would have been the intended claimants have no priority. Spec wording ('any member may claim the role') is honoured literally, but a 0-second-old member was not the intent, and the existing tests only exercise a claim by a long-standing member (test_claimCaptainAfterInactivity). Suggested minimal fix that keeps the design: require members[msg.sender].joinedDay + INACTIVITY_DAYS <= _day() (or a recent check-in) in claimCaptain, so only members who outlasted the captain's idle window can claim.","line":221,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"State: day D0 capA createGuild(\"Alpha\",5,keccak256(\"s3cret\")); bob joins and checks in; capA never checks in. Day D0+14: bob checks in (guild is alive and active). eve calls join(1,\"s3cret\") then, in the same block, claimCaptain(). Expected: revert or at least no takeover by a member with zero history. Actual: getGuild(1).captain == eve; eve then calls kick(capA), kick(bob), setInviteCode(keccak256(\"eve-only\")), setRecruiting(false); memberCount == 1, members[capA].guildId == 0, members[bob].guildId == 0. Reproduced in test/scratch/ControlFlow.t.sol test_A_newJoinerHijacksGuild (passes on current code, i.e. the takeover succeeds).","severity":"low","snippet":"        require(_day() >= g.captainActiveDay + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"captain active\");","title":"claimCaptain lets a wallet that joined seconds earlier take over a guild and kick everyone, including the founder"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"_removeMember subtracts the removed wallet's current-season points from guildSeasonTotal and _touch lowers guildSeasonMembers to the new memberCount, so the frozen season score a later submitWar() divides (line 311) is the average of whoever is still a member at the last touch of the season. Nothing ties a guild's season average to the roster that earned it. A captain who kicks every member scoring below the top scorer at Sunday 23:59 UTC raises the guild's average to that top score, settles the war on Monday with a score the roster never achieved, and since kick() applies no cool-down (CONTRACT.md line 34) the kicked wallets rejoin the next second with the same invite code. The opponent guild loses a war it would have won on the honest average; the kicked members lose their recorded season points. This is a sequencing hole between the two steps of the war (accumulate during the season, settle after it) rather than the documented 'captains pick their opponent' limitation: it also beats an opponent that submits the pairing itself. Fix options that keep the average-based design: freeze guildSeasonMembers/guildSeasonTotal at their maximum for the season (or at the season's first value) for kicks, or keep a removed member's points in the guild total for the season in which they were earned when the removal is a kick.","line":389,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Season S, MONDAY..SUNDAY. Guild A: capA, bob, eve (5 seats). Guild B: capB, m1, m2. capA checks in all 7 days (70 pts); bob and eve check in on Monday only (10 each); capB, m1, m2 check in 4 days each (40 each). seasonScore(A,S) = 90/3 = 30e6, seasonScore(B,S) = 120/3 = 40e6, so B should win. At MONDAY+7 days-1 (Sunday 23:59:59) capA calls kick(bob), kick(eve): seasonScore(A,S) becomes 70/1 = 70e6. At MONDAY+7 days capA calls submitWar(S, A, B). Expected: B wins or the kicks do not change the settled score. Actual: A gets 300 tier points, B gets 0; bob and eve then join(A,\"s3cret\") successfully in the same block (no cool-down) and memberCount is 3 again. Reproduced in test/scratch/ControlFlow.t.sol test_B_kickBeforeSettlementInflatesAverage.","severity":"low","snippet":"        uint32 pts = memberSeasonPoints[wallet][season];\n        if (pts != 0) {\n            guildSeasonTotal[guildId][season] -= pts;","title":"Captain can kick low scorers just before season end to inflate the war average, then re-admit them at once"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"CONTRACT.md line 16 says the freshness rule 'resists staking right before a check-in'. The official staking docs (docs.squeekchain.com/developers/staking, Freshness and maturity) state that rounds last ten minutes, freshUntilRound = current round + 1, and 'freshPrincipal reads 0 once that round has started'. So stakeOf() returns fresh == 0 at most 600 seconds after a stake and this branch is skipped: a wallet can stake 40 SQK (quotePower(40e18,0) == 1e18 == minStakerPower on the live contract), wait for the next round boundary, check in with the x1.25 bonus, unstake (live exit fee 2% when exits are quiet, so 0.8 SQK) and pass the same 40 SQK to the next guild member the same day. The second half of the condition is also dead: Mining's nextRound is processedThroughRound + 1, which never exceeds the current time-based round, so whenever fresh > 0 the comparison freshUntil > nextRound is always true; it cannot reject anything the first half did not. The contract is not wrong to treat matured stake as mature, but the protection claimed in CONTRACT.md is only a 10-minute delay, and SPEC.md section 6 asks the README to document the unstake fee behaviour and whether the trick is cheap or expensive; README.md contains neither the word 'fee' nor the trick. Suggested fix: document the real cost (one round of waiting plus a 2%-60% burned exit fee), or if the game wants a real deterrent, require the stake to have been present at the wallet's previous check-in (store sqkPower at check-in and use min(previous, current)).","line":447,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Live Sepolia values read on 2026-11-08 at block 12089687: POWER_UNIT() = 1e18, powerParameters() = (40e18 SQK per power unit, 1e21), quotePower(40e18, 0) = 1e18, totalFresh() = (0, 657) while checkpointStatus().nextRound = 656 (the fresh round 657 has already started, so freshPrincipal is 0 while nextRound still lags). Sequence: wallet W with 0 SQK staked stakes 40 SQK at time t (stakeOf returns (40e18, 40e18, r+1)); at t + 600 s stakeOf returns (40e18, 0, r+1) and accountPower returns sqkPower 1e18. W calls checkIn(): expected per CONTRACT.md 'staking right before a check-in does not count'; actual: fresh == 0 so the discount branch is skipped, effective = 1e18 >= minStakerPower, points = 12 (or 25 with the round bonus). Offline, with the mocks: staking.setPower(1e18); staking.setStake(40e18, 0, 700) with mining round 654 gives checkIn() == 12, which is what the live contract reports one round after staking.","severity":"low","snippet":"        if (fresh > 0 && freshUntil > nextRound) {","title":"Freshness rule only delays the stake-before-check-in trick by one 10-minute round; exit fee and trick cost are undocumented"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"_validateName only checks length 1..24 and the character class, which includes the space. It does not reject names made only of spaces, leading or trailing spaces, or a name already used by another guild. In the rankings and war pages the spec builds from this registry, a second guild can present itself as 'Night Owls' or 'Night Owls ' next to the real one, and an all-space name renders as an empty row. No funds or points are affected; it is a display/impersonation nuisance for a leaderboard that keys on names. Fix: reject leading/trailing/consecutive spaces (or require at least one non-space character) and, if uniqueness is wanted, keep a mapping(bytes32 => bool) of lower-cased name hashes.","line":414,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"capA.createGuild(\"Alpha\",5,h), capB.createGuild(\"Alpha\",5,h), bob.createGuild(\"Alpha \",5,h) and eve.createGuild(\"    \",5,h) all succeed and return ids 1..4; getGuild(4).name is four spaces. Expected: at least the all-space and duplicate names rejected. Reproduced in test/scratch/ControlFlow.t.sol test_C_blankAndDuplicateNames.","severity":"info","snippet":"            bool ok = (c >= 0x30 && c <= 0x39) || (c >= 0x41 && c <= 0x5A) || (c >= 0x61 && c <= 0x7A) || c == 0x20","title":"Guild names may be blank, space-padded or duplicates of an existing guild's name"}],"hash":"04d7c61762945479facb50d2b6309e4e8c6c162e5dfd7fd726290bf53fc88b9a","nodeId":"1771062a-af86-4658-9852-a99d6df3a7b5","outcome":"completed","summary":"The control-flow review is complete. The findings file is written at the repository root and no project file was changed.\n\n**Outcome.** No critical, high or medium defect in the control-flow area. GuildWars holds nothing, has no owner, and its guarded reads behave as documented against the live Sepolia contracts. Four reproducible issues are reported, three low and one informational.\n\n**Findings written to `.imd-findings.json`:**\n\n1. **Low, guild takeover by a fresh joiner.** A wallet that joins a guild whose captain has been idle 14 days can call the captain claim in the same block, then kick the founder and every member and lock the guild. Reproduced in scratch.\n2. **Low, pre-settlement kick inflates the war average.** A captain kicks low scorers at Sunday 23:59, the frozen season average rises to the top scorer's points, the war is won Monday, and the kicked members rejoin at once because kicks carry no cool-down. Reproduced in scratch with an opponent that would have won honestly.\n3. **Low, freshness rule is a 10-minute delay, not a deterrent.** Official staking docs say fresh principal reads zero once the next 10-minute round starts, so the stake-then-check-in trick costs one round of waiting plus a 2% burned exit fee. CONTRACT.md overstates the protection and the README omits the fee discussion the spec asked for.\n4. **Info, blank, padded and duplicate guild names** all pass name validation.\n\n**Verified against live Sepolia.** Both proxy addresses match the official deployment record and have code. The selector, output order and types of all three read functions match the official ABI. The three reads cost about 27k, 19k and 21k gas, well under the 100k cap. The threshold of 1e18 equals the power quoted for exactly 40 SQK, and SQK power is linear in principal, so the proportional freshness formula is exact.\n\n**Coverage.** All 12 entry points have a row. Eight hold, four reference findings 1, 2 and 4. Three invariant rows cover season accounting, non-reverting reads and constructor inputs. Nothing was left unreached.\n\n**Not done.** No proof tests were attached since no finding reached high severity. The repository vendors no forge-std, so a forge-std-based proof would not compile in this tree. Scratch tests under test/scratch used the project's own harness and are disposable.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":1442386,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":5079990},"inputTokens":450,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":45118,"runtime":"claude","turns":36,"wallClockMs":660450}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"0eca5d6d7ad6ddb4","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"Boundary: the two staticcalls in _isStaker are documented (CONTRACT.md line 9, natspec at lines 420 and 432-433) as never reverting the caller: 'a failed, reverting or malformed read only means no bonus'. The code guards the call status, the return length, the bool-word decoding and the division by principal, but not the product sqkPower * (principal - fresh). Both operands are raw words taken from the external answer (accountPower().sqkPower and stakeOf().principal/freshPrincipal). When their product exceeds 2^256 the checked multiplication panics (0x11) inside checkIn(), so the whole check-in fails. Today's live proxy answers realistic magnitudes (~2e22 for a 40,000 SQK stake, probed on Sepolia), so this needs the official upgradeable proxy to answer a malformed or re-scaled value; but that exact class of malformed answer is the one the author already defended against for checkpointStatus (decode as uint256, cap to uint64). The staker path lacks the same bound, so the stated 'never reverts' property does not hold at the boundary. Minimal fix: compute the discounted power with Math.mulDiv-style 512-bit arithmetic, or treat sqkPower or principal above a sane bound (e.g. > type(uint128).max) as a failed read and return false.","line":448,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","proof":"// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT\npragma solidity ^0.8.24;\n\nimport {Test} from \"forge-std/Test.sol\";\nimport {GuildWars} from \"src/GuildWars.sol\";\n\n/// Answers any selector with the bytes set for it.\ncontract Answering {\n    mapping(bytes4 => bytes) private _r;\n    function set(bytes4 s, bytes memory d) external { _r[s] = d; }\n    fallback(bytes calldata data) external returns (bytes memory) { return _r[bytes4(data[:4])]; }\n}\n\ncontract StakerOverflowTest is Test {\n    uint256 constant MONDAY = 1_800_230_400;\n    bytes4 constant CHECKPOINT_STATUS = bytes4(keccak256(\"checkpointStatus()\"));\n    bytes4 constant ACCOUNT_POWER = bytes4(keccak256(\"accountPower(address)\"));\n    bytes4 constant STAKE_OF = bytes4(keccak256(\"stakeOf(address)\"));\n\n    GuildWars gw;\n    Answering mining;\n    Answering staking;\n    address alice = address(0xA11CE);\n\n    function setUp() public {\n        vm.warp(MONDAY);\n        mining = new Answering();\n        staking = new Answering();\n        mining.set(CHECKPOINT_STATUS, abi.encode(false, uint256(654), false));\n        gw = new GuildWars(address(mining), address(staking), 1e18);\n        vm.prank(alice);\n        gw.createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, keccak256(\"c\"));\n    }\n\n    /// CONTRACT.md: \"a failed, reverting or malformed read only means 'no bonus'\". A stakeOf answer\n    /// with a huge principal and a non-zero fresh share makes sqkPower * (principal - fresh) overflow\n    /// and the whole check-in reverts with a panic instead of earning the base 10 points.\n    function test_malformedStakeOfMustNotRevertCheckIn() public {\n        uint256 big = 1 << 200;\n        staking.set(ACCOUNT_POWER, abi.encode(uint256(0), big));\n        staking.set(STAKE_OF, abi.encode(big, uint256(1), uint256(10_000)));\n        vm.prank(alice);\n        uint256 points = gw.checkIn();\n        assertEq(points, 10, \"malformed stake read must mean no bonus, not a revert\");\n    }\n}","reproduction":"State: GuildWars deployed with any mining/staking addresses; wallet alice is in a guild (createGuild). Staking proxy answers accountPower(alice) = (0, 2^200) and stakeOf(alice) = (principal = 2^200, freshPrincipal = 1, freshUntilRound = 10000) while the mining proxy answers nextRound = 654. Call checkIn() as alice. Expected (per CONTRACT.md and natspec): returns 10 base points, no staker bonus. Actual: revert with panic 0x11 at line 448, because 2^200 * (2^200 - 1) overflows uint256; alice cannot check in while the proxy answers this way. The scratch test test/scratch/StakerOverflow.t.sol fails on the current code with 'panic: arithmetic underflow or overflow (0x11)' and passes once the multiplication is bounded.","severity":"low","snippet":"            effective = fresh >= principal ? 0 : (sqkPower * (principal - fresh)) / principal;","title":"_isStaker multiplies two unbounded values returned by the staking proxy; an oversized answer reverts every check-in instead of meaning \"no bonus\""},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Numerical gap (boundary x invariant): the war score is guildSeasonTotal / guildSeasonMembers, and _touch rewrites guildSeasonMembers[guild][season] to the live memberCount on every join, leave, kick or removeInactive within the season (line 406), while _removeMember only subtracts the removed wallet's own points (lines 389-393). A removed wallet with 0 points therefore shrinks the divisor without touching the numerator. Because kick() has no inactivity requirement and no cool-down for the kicked wallet (CONTRACT.md line 34), a captain can prune every idle member at 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, settle the war with the inflated average, and let the same wallets rejoin on Monday. The anti-abuse note 'Score is an average, so adding empty wallets lowers it' (SPEC.md section 6) is therefore only true until the captain removes them at the boundary; in practice every guild's score is max(member points) rather than the average. Tier points are cosmetic, so severity is low, but this is not among the documented limitations. Possible fixes that keep the design: freeze guildSeasonMembers at the maximum member count seen during the season (or at the first touch), or exclude members kicked during a season from reducing that season's divisor (count the season's distinct contributing/seated wallets instead of the live memberCount).","line":406,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Season S (Monday 2027-01-18 00:00 UTC = 1800230400). Guild A: captain + 4 members who never check in; captain checks in all 7 days => guildSeasonTotal[A][S] = 70, guildSeasonMembers[A][S] = 5, seasonScore average 14e6. Guild B: 5 members who all check in on 4 days => total 200, members 5, average 40e6. At 1800230400 + 7 days - 1 (Sunday 23:59:59) the captain of A calls kick() on the 4 idle wallets: each _removeMember subtracts 0 points and _touch sets guildSeasonMembers[A][S] = 1, so seasonScore(A, S) becomes (70, 1, 70e6). On Monday the captain of A calls submitWar(S, A, B): scoreA = 70e6 > scoreB = 40e6, A receives 300 tier points and B receives 0, although A's average over the season's actual roster was 14 against 40. The kicked wallets then call join(A, code) immediately (no cool-down). Verified with test/scratch/KickBoost.t.sol (passes on current code, i.e. the behaviour is present).","severity":"low","snippet":"        guildSeasonMembers[guildId][season] = g.memberCount;","title":"Season average divides by the member count at the last activity, so a captain can kick idle members one second before the season ends and turn the guild average into its best member's score"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Scale/decimals check on the constructor argument. The brief states minStakerPower = 1e18 is '1 power unit, about 40 SQK staked' and SPEC.md section 3 requires the threshold to 'exclude dust amounts (document the number and why)'. CONTRACT.md line 31 says only that it is a raw sqkPower value and that the unit must be checked. Reading the live proxy on Sepolia for the one wallet with recent staking activity shows principal 40,079.41 SQK (SQK has 18 decimals) and sqkPower 20,841.29e18, i.e. principal / sqkPower = 1.923 (exactly 25/13). At that ratio 1e18 of sqkPower is reached with about 1.92 SQK of principal, roughly 20x less than the brief's 40 SQK, so the fixed x1.25 bonus is available for a near-dust stake. The ratio may depend on the staker's lock tier (only one live staker was observable; the docs site is behind a bot challenge from this machine), so the exact factor is unverified, but the 40 SQK figure is contradicted by the only live sample. Since minStakerPower is immutable, the value must be chosen correctly before launch: derive the power-per-SQK factor from the official documentation or from several live stakers and set the argument to the sqkPower that corresponds to the intended SQK threshold.","line":49,"path":"README.md","reproduction":"On Sepolia (https://ethereum-sepolia-rpc.publicnode.com), eth_call to 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca with data = 0x9624178f ++ left-padded 0xb1206bf73540fb10b5b2f224cba24b9cc20224bc (accountPower(address)) returns (nftPower = 0x4315c32d71a9e60000 = 1237.5e18, sqkPower = 0x469cf11b653d2b9ab59 = 20841.29e18); data = 0x42623360 ++ the same padded address (stakeOf(address)) returns (principal = 0x87cb598373ebca02222 = 40079.41e18, freshPrincipal = 0, freshUntilRound = 0x289). Expected under the brief: sqkPower ~= principal / 40 ~= 1002e18. Actual: sqkPower = principal / 1.923. Consequence in GuildWars: with minStakerPower = 1e18, _isStaker returns true (line 439 passes, line 450 passes) for any wallet with about 1.92 SQK or more of non-fresh principal, so staking ~2 SQK is enough to earn 12 or 25 points per check-in instead of 10 or 20.","severity":"low","snippet":"The contract is deployed once through the IdentityMD project factory with these constructor arguments, in order: `mining` = SqueekMining proxy, `staking` = SqueekStaking proxy (addresses above), `minStakerPower` = `1000000000000000000` (1 power unit). The changes made for the launch and the audit findings handled are listed in `ADAPTATION.md`.","title":"minStakerPower = 1e18 corresponds to about 1.9 SQK of principal on the live Sepolia staking proxy, not the 'about 40 SQK' the brief assumes"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Boundary off-by-one at day granularity. lastCheckInDay, joinedDay and captainActiveDay store floor(timestamp / 1 days); the guards at lines 200 and 221 compare today's day number with last + 14. A check-in at 23:59:59 UTC on day D makes the member removable (and the captain claimable, line 221) at 00:00:00 UTC on day D + 14, i.e. 13 days and 1 second later, whereas CONTRACT.md line 14 and SPEC.md section 3 say '14 days'. The real window is therefore between 13 days + 1 s and 14 days depending on the time of day of the last check-in. This is consistent with the calendar-day model of check-ins and is informational; if the intent is a full 14 x 24 h, compare against last + INACTIVITY_DAYS + 1 or store timestamps.","line":200,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Monday = 1800230400. Bob joins guild 1 at Monday 00:00 and checks in at Monday 23:59:59 (timestamp 1800316799, day 20836). At timestamp 1800230400 + 14 days - 1 (Sunday 23:59:59, day 20849) removeInactive(bob) reverts 'still active'. At 1800230400 + 14 days (day 20850 = 20836 + 14), 13 days and 1 second after the check-in, removeInactive(bob) succeeds and members[bob].guildId becomes 0; the same timing lets another member call claimCaptain() after the captain's 23:59:59 check-in. Verified with test/scratch/InactivityBoundary.t.sol.","severity":"info","snippet":"        require(_day() >= last + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"still active\");","title":"14-day inactivity windows are measured in UTC day numbers, so removeInactive and claimCaptain succeed as little as 13 days and 1 second after the last check-in"}],"hash":"3b25cbb0dd5af8326ff91aca5908c65501757addfc1e752cb2b0f6ab990445d6","nodeId":"fe5cbd0e-a454-4896-9ea9-f8f2033c1b35","outcome":"completed","summary":"The review is complete and `.imd-findings.json` holds 4 findings and 16 coverage rows. No tracked file was changed; only `test/scratch/` and the findings file were written.\n\n**What I checked**\n\nThe math in GuildWars.sol is tight in its core. Points are exactly 10, 12, 20 or 25 with no overflow or bad cast. The season average compares exactly: with at most 20 members, any true difference in averages is at least 2500 scaled units, so the 1e6 scale can never produce a false tie or a flipped winner. The guild total always equals the sum of current members' points for the running season, so the subtraction on removal cannot underflow. Season rollover lands on Monday 00:00 UTC. The live Sepolia proxies answer the expected word counts under 45k gas each, within the 100k cap.\n\n**Findings, all low or informational**\n\n1. **Staker read can revert check-ins.** The product of `sqkPower` and `principal - fresh` is unbounded external data. An oversized `stakeOf` answer makes `checkIn()` panic instead of giving \"no bonus\", contradicting the documented guarantee. A proof test fails on the current code with panic 0x11.\n2. **Kick at season end rewrites the average.** The divisor follows the live member count, so a captain can kick idle members at Sunday 23:59:59, settle the war as the best member's score, and let them rejoin Monday with no cool-down. Reproduced: a guild with a true average of 14 beats one with 40.\n3. **Threshold scale is off from the brief.** The only observable live staker has principal 40,079 SQK and `sqkPower` 20,841e18, a ratio of 1.92. At that ratio `minStakerPower = 1e18` is reached with about 1.9 SQK, not the 40 SQK the brief assumes. The argument is immutable, so this needs confirmation before launch.\n4. **Inactivity window is day-granular.** Removal and captain takeover succeed as little as 13 days and 1 second after a 23:59:59 check-in.\n\n**Not reached**\n\nThe official docs site is behind a bot challenge from this machine, so the power-per-SQK rule and the exact meaning of `freshUntilRound` at equality could not be confirmed from documentation. Only one live staker was observable on the public RPC.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":2010635,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":4894836},"inputTokens":674,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":42595,"runtime":"claude","turns":39,"wallClockMs":720355}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"3bed38612db34f32","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"Merged from audit_math, audit_economics and write_foundry_tests (same root cause). CONTRACT.md line 9 and the natspec at lines 420 and 432-433 promise that the two guarded reads never revert the caller: a failed or malformed read only means no bonus. The call status, return length and bool decoding are guarded, and the division by principal is guarded by the fresh >= principal branch, but the product sqkPower * (principal - fresh) is checked uint256 arithmetic on two words copied straight from the external answer. When the product exceeds 2^256 the check-in reverts with Panic(0x11). With today's live values (sqkPower about 2e22, principal about 4e22) no overflow is possible, so this needs the upgradeable official proxy to answer a re-scaled or malformed value; it is the same class of malformed answer the author already defended against in _readRound (decode as uint256, cap to uint64). GuildWars has no owner and immutable addresses, so if the staking contract ever answered this way every affected wallet's daily check-in would be blocked with no remedy on this side. Points are cosmetic and the trigger is a third party, hence low. Minimal fix: treat sqkPower or principal above a sane bound (e.g. > type(uint128).max, which quotePower on the live contract also rejects) as a failed read and return false, or use 512-bit mulDiv.","line":448,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","proof":"// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT\npragma solidity ^0.8.24;\n\nimport {GuildWars} from \"src/GuildWars.sol\";\n\ninterface OverflowProofVm {\n    function warp(uint256) external;\n}\n\ncontract OverflowProofMining {\n    function checkpointStatus() external pure returns (bool, uint64, bool) {\n        return (false, 100, false);\n    }\n}\n\ncontract OverflowProofStaking {\n    function accountPower(address) external pure returns (uint256, uint256) {\n        return (0, type(uint256).max);\n    }\n\n    function stakeOf(address) external pure returns (uint256, uint256, uint64) {\n        return (3, 1, 101);\n    }\n}\n\ncontract StakingOverflowProofTest {\n    function test_largeStakingResponseMustNotBlockCheckIn() public {\n        OverflowProofVm vm = OverflowProofVm(address(uint160(uint256(keccak256(\"hevm cheat code\")))));\n        vm.warp(1_800_230_400);\n        GuildWars game = new GuildWars(address(new OverflowProofMining()), address(new OverflowProofStaking()), 1e18);\n        game.createGuild(\"Overflow proof\", 5, keccak256(\"invite\"));\n\n        // Either compute the large ratio safely or ignore the anomalous staking bonus.\n        // In both cases the promised base check-in must remain live.\n        uint256 points = game.checkIn();\n        require(points == 10 || points == 12, \"unexpected first check-in points\");\n        require(game.guildSeasonTotal(1, game.currentSeason()) == points, \"check-in was not recorded\");\n    }\n}","reproduction":"State: GuildWars(mining, staking, 1e18) with mocks; mining.checkpointStatus() returns (false, 100, false); staking.accountPower(w) returns (0, type(uint256).max); staking.stakeOf(w) returns (3, 1, 101). At timestamp 1800230400 wallet w calls createGuild(\"Overflow proof\", 5, keccak256(\"invite\")) then checkIn(). Expected per CONTRACT.md line 9: check-in recorded with 10 points (bonus ignored) or 12 (ratio computed safely). Actual: revert Panic(0x11) at line 448 (type(uint256).max * (3 - 1) overflows), nothing recorded. Same with accountPower = (0, 2^200), stakeOf = (2^200, 1, 10000). Ran: forge test --match-path test/scratch/Proof_0c8bc224fce7.t.sol -> [FAIL: panic: arithmetic underflow or overflow (0x11)] test_largeStakingResponseMustNotBlockCheckIn. Note: this repository vendors no lib/forge-std (lib/ is empty and protected), so the attached proof uses the raw cheatcode address instead of forge-std/Test.sol; the math specialist's forge-std proof does not compile here for that reason.","severity":"low","snippet":"            effective = fresh >= principal ? 0 : (sqkPower * (principal - fresh)) / principal;","title":"_isStaker multiplies two raw staking return words with checked arithmetic, so an oversized answer from the staking proxy reverts the whole check-in instead of meaning no bonus"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Merged from audit_math, audit_economics and audit_flow (same root cause). _touch rewrites guildSeasonMembers[guild][season] to the live memberCount on every join, leave, kick, removeInactive or check-in during the season (line 406), and _removeMember only subtracts the removed wallet's own season points (lines 389-393). A removed wallet with few or zero points therefore shrinks the divisor while leaving the numerator almost untouched. kick() has no inactivity condition and no cool-down for the kicked wallet (CONTRACT.md line 34), so a captain can prune every member below the top scorer in the last second of the season, settle the war on Monday with submitWar (line 311 divides by the pruned count) and have the same wallets rejoin immediately. The same effect happens through leave() by a low scorer. The documented anti-abuse argument 'score is an average, so adding empty wallets lowers it' (SPEC.md section 6, CONTRACT.md line 30) therefore only holds until the captain removes them at the boundary: with a cooperating captain the effective war score is max(member points), and the opponent loses a war it would have won on the real average. Tier points are cosmetic, hence low; it is not among the documented limitations. Fix that keeps the design: freeze guildSeasonMembers[g][S] at the maximum member count seen in season S (never lower it within a season), or keep a kicked member's season points in the guild total for that season.","line":406,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"test/scratch/Judge.t.sol test_pruneAtSeasonEnd and test_leaveAtSeasonEndRaisesAverage (both pass on the current code, i.e. the behaviour is present). State: MONDAY = 1800230400, season S = currentSeason(). capA creates guild 1 (5 seats) and m1..m4 join; capB creates guild 2 and bob, eve join. Days 0..6 capA checks in daily (70 points); capB, bob, eve check in on days 0..3 (40 each). seasonScore(1,S) = (70, 5, 14e6); seasonScore(2,S) = (120, 3, 40e6). At MONDAY + 7 days - 1 capA calls kick(m1), kick(m2), kick(m3), kick(m4): each _removeMember subtracts 0 and _touch sets guildSeasonMembers[1][S] = 1, so seasonScore(1,S) = (70, 1, 70e6). At MONDAY + 7 days capA calls submitWar(S, 1, 2). Expected (SPEC.md section 3, README.md line 14): guild 1 averaged 14 against 40 and loses. Actual: scoreA = 70e6 > scoreB = 40e6, guild 1 tierPoints = 300, guild 2 = 0; m1 then calls join(1, \"s3cret\") successfully in the same block (memberCount back to 2). Leave variant: guild with capA (20 points) and m1 (10 points), average 15e6; m1 calls leave() at MONDAY + 7 days - 1 -> seasonScore = (20, 1, 20e6).","severity":"low","snippet":"        guildSeasonMembers[guildId][season] = g.memberCount;","title":"Season average divides by the roster at the last touch of the season, so kicking or leaving idle members just before Sunday 23:59:59 UTC turns a guild's war score into its best member's score at no co"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Merged from audit_flow and audit_permissions (same root cause). claimCaptain() checks only membership (line 218), that the caller is not already captain (line 220) and that captainActiveDay is at least 14 days old (line 221). It does not require the claimant to have been a member for any time or to have checked in once. join() is open to anyone presenting the invite code while recruiting is on, and CONTRACT.md line 32 documents that every join publishes the code in calldata. Chained, the first wallet that holds the code can call join() and claimCaptain() back to back the moment the captain's last check-in is 14 days old, then kick() the founder and every other member (the founder is now an ordinary member), rotate the code and close recruiting. The guild's name, tier points and war history pass to a stranger and the kicked members lose their current-season points. Active members who relied on the same 14-day clock have no priority. Impact is cosmetic, hence low. Fix that preserves the design: require tenure in claimCaptain, e.g. require(_day() >= members[msg.sender].joinedDay + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"too new\") or a check-in recorded after joining.","line":221,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"test/scratch/Judge.t.sol test_newJoinerHijacks (passes on the current code). State: MONDAY = 1800230400; capA createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, keccak256(\"s3cret\")) (recruiting on by default); bob join(1, \"s3cret\") and checkIn(); capA never checks in. At MONDAY + 14 days bob checks in again (guild alive). eve, never a member, calls join(1, \"s3cret\") then claimCaptain() in the same block. Expected: a zero-day member cannot take the guild over long-standing members. Actual: getGuild(1).captain == eve; eve then calls kick(capA), kick(bob), setInviteCode(keccak256(\"x\")), setRecruiting(false), all succeed; memberCount == 1, members(capA).guildId == 0, members(bob).guildId == 0. Control: at MONDAY + 14 days - 1 claimCaptain() reverts with \"captain active\" (test_claimRevertsBefore14).","severity":"low","snippet":"        require(_day() >= g.captainActiveDay + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"captain active\");","title":"claimCaptain has no tenure or activity requirement: a wallet holding the leaked invite code can join and seize a guild with an idle captain in one transaction, then kick every long-standing member"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"From audit_permissions; reproduced. setLookingForGuild() is the only writer of members[w].lookingForGuild and has no guard; the state transitions that end the search, _addMember via join() and createGuild() (lines 379-385), never reset it, and a captain or member can set it to true. SPEC.md section 5 builds the recruiting page's 'looking for a guild' board from this flag and the contract is its only data source, so the board advertises wallets whose join() would revert with 'already in a guild'; captains who share the invite code with them leak the code (CONTRACT.md line 32) for nothing. No value at stake, hence low. Fix: in _addMember set m.lookingForGuild = false (and emit LookingForGuild(wallet, false)), and/or require members[msg.sender].guildId == 0 when setting it to true.","line":242,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"test/scratch/Judge.t.sol test_lookingFlagPersists (passes on the current code). State: capA createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, keccak256(\"s3cret\")). eve calls setLookingForGuild(true), then join(1, \"s3cret\"); read members(eve). Expected: lookingForGuild == false once eve is in a guild. Actual: guildId == 1 and lookingForGuild == true. Then capA (captain of guild 1) calls setLookingForGuild(true): members(capA).lookingForGuild == true although capA cannot join any guild.","severity":"low","snippet":"        members[msg.sender].lookingForGuild = looking;","title":"lookingForGuild is never cleared by join/createGuild and can be set while already in a guild, so the recruiting board built from this flag lists wallets that cannot join anything"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"From audit_flow; reproduced against the official documentation and the live contract. docs.squeekchain.com/developers/staking states that rounds last ten minutes (600 s), that freshUntilRound = floor((t - genesis) / 600) + 2, and that stakeOf().freshPrincipal 'reads 0 once that round has started'. So between 10 and 20 minutes after staking, stakeOf returns fresh == 0 and the branch at src/GuildWars.sol line 447 is skipped; the contract's own discount can only ever shorten a window the staking contract already closes. The second half of the condition (freshUntil > nextRound) is also inert: on Sepolia today totalFresh() reports round 660 while SqueekMining.checkpointStatus().nextRound is 658, i.e. the mining counter lags the time-based round, so whenever fresh > 0 the comparison is true. The code is not wrong to treat matured stake as mature, but CONTRACT.md line 16 ('This resists staking right before a check-in') overstates the protection: a wallet can stake 40 SQK (quotePower(40e18, 0) == 1e18 == minStakerPower on the live contract), wait for the next round boundary, check in with the x1.25 bonus, unstake (documented exit fee 2% when exits are quiet, burned) and hand the SQK to the next member the same day. SPEC.md section 6 requires README.md to 'document the unstake fee behaviour of SqueekStaking ... and whether a stake right before check-in trick is cheap or expensive'; README.md contains neither (grep for 'fee' returns nothing). Severity low: a documentation and deliverable gap, cosmetic points. Fix: document the real cost (one round of waiting plus a 2%-60% burned exit fee per cycle) in README.md and soften CONTRACT.md line 16; if a real deterrent is wanted, require the power to have been present at the wallet's previous check-in.","line":16,"path":"CONTRACT.md","reproduction":"Live Sepolia reads on 2026-11-08 at block 12089778 via https://ethereum-sepolia-rpc.publicnode.com: cast call 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca 'quotePower(uint256,uint256)(uint256)' 40000000000000000000 0 -> 1000000000000000000; 'powerParameters()(uint256,uint256)' -> (40e18, 1e21); 'totalFresh()(uint256,uint64)' -> (2567e18, 660); cast call 0x2dccb11fcc2defdd188555e45acb52231e82e218 'checkpointStatus()(bool,uint64,bool)' -> (false, 658, true). Offline with the mocks (test/GuildWars.t.sol fixture): staking.setPower(1e18); staking.setStake(40e18, 0, 700); mining round 654; a member's checkIn() returns 12, which is what the live contract reports one round after staking since fresh reads 0. Expected per CONTRACT.md line 16 and SPEC.md section 6: the trick is resisted and its cost is documented in README.md. Actual: the bonus is available 10-20 minutes after staking and README.md has no fee or trick section.","severity":"low","snippet":"- Staking freshness: when `stakeOf(...).freshUntilRound` is still ahead of the current round, the effective power is `sqkPower * (principal - freshPrincipal) / principal`. This resists staking right before a check-in. It is a design choice based on the field names of the official ABI; check it against the official documentation.","title":"The freshness rule delays the stake-before-check-in trick by at most two 10-minute rounds, and README.md omits the unstake-fee and trick-cost explanation SPEC.md section 6 requires"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Merged from audit_math and audit_economics, corrected. Both specialists concluded from one live staker each that the brief's '1 power unit, about 40 SQK staked' was wrong (they derived 1.9 SQK and 5.3 SQK per power unit). The live contract's own quote contradicts that reading: quotePower(40e18, 0) returns exactly 1e18 and powerParameters() returns sqkPerPower = 40e18, so the brief's figure is correct for a wallet without NFT power. The official docs give Q = S * 1e18 * (P_ref + P) / (c * P_ref) with c = 40e18 and P_ref = 1e21: a wallet's sqkPower per SQK grows linearly with its deposited NFT power P. That explains both samples exactly: wallet 0xb120...24bc has nftPower 19800e18, factor 20.8, so 40079 SQK gives 20841e18 power (1.92 SQK per unit); wallet 0x0614...b745 has nftPower 6600e18, factor 7.6 (5.26 SQK per unit). Consequence for GuildWars: with minStakerPower = 1e18 a heavy NFT staker earns the fixed x1.25 bonus with about 2 SQK of mature principal, while a wallet without NFTs needs 40 SQK. This is the official staking design, not a code defect, and the brief fixed the value explicitly; reported as info so the requester can decide whether 'about 40 SQK' (README.md line 49, launch.json notes) should read 'about 40 SQK without NFT power' or the threshold should be raised. minStakerPower is immutable, so the decision must precede launch.","line":49,"path":"README.md","reproduction":"Live Sepolia, block 12089778, RPC https://ethereum-sepolia-rpc.publicnode.com, staking 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca: quotePower(40e18, 0) = 1e18; quotePower(1e18, 0) = 2.5e16; powerParameters() = (40000000000000000000, 1000000000000000000000); accountPower(0xb1206bf73540fb10b5b2f224cba24b9cc20224bc) = (19800e18, 20841294966729672862553) with stakeOf principal 40079413397557063197218: 40079.4e18 * 1e18 * (1000e18 + 19800e18) / (40e18 * 1000e18) = 20841.3e18, matching. In GuildWars terms: for that wallet _isStaker (lines 438-450) returns true with principal >= 1.923 SQK; for a wallet with nftPower 0 it needs principal >= 40 SQK. Expected per README.md line 49: '1 power unit' ~ 40 SQK for everyone. Actual: 40 SQK only at nftPower 0.","severity":"info","snippet":"The contract is deployed once through the IdentityMD project factory with these constructor arguments, in order: `mining` = SqueekMining proxy, `staking` = SqueekStaking proxy (addresses above), `minStakerPower` = `1000000000000000000` (1 power unit). The changes made for the launch and the audit findings handled are listed in `ADAPTATION.md`.","title":"minStakerPower = 1e18 equals 40 SQK only at zero NFT power; Squeek NFT holders reach the x1.25 threshold with a few SQK because sqkPower scales with (referencePower + nftPower) / referencePower"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Merged from audit_flow and audit_permissions. _validateName checks only length 1..24 and the character class, which includes the space (0x20); nothing rejects a name consisting only of spaces, leading or trailing spaces, or a name already used by another guild. The spec renders rankings, war cards and trophies by name, so a second 'Alpha' or 'Alpha ' can impersonate the real one and an all-space name renders as an empty row. No points or funds affected; the spec does not demand uniqueness, so info. Fix if wanted: require at least one non-space character and no leading/trailing space; keep a mapping(bytes32 => bool) of keccak256(bytes(name)) for uniqueness.","line":414,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"test/scratch/Judge.t.sol test_names (passes on the current code). capA createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, h) -> 1; capB createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, h) -> 2; bob createGuild(\"Alpha \", 5, h) -> 3; eve createGuild(\"    \", 5, h) -> 4; getGuild(4).name is four spaces. Expected (if intended): the duplicate and all-space names revert with 'bad character' or a uniqueness error. Actual: all four succeed.","severity":"info","snippet":"            bool ok = (c >= 0x30 && c <= 0x39) || (c >= 0x41 && c <= 0x5A) || (c >= 0x61 && c <= 0x7A) || c == 0x20","title":"Guild names may be all spaces, space-padded or byte-identical to an existing guild's name"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"From audit_math; reproduced. lastCheckInDay, joinedDay and captainActiveDay store floor(timestamp / 1 days) and lines 200 and 221 compare today's day number with last + 14. A check-in at 23:59:59 UTC on day D makes the member removable, and the captain claimable, at 00:00:00 UTC on day D + 14, i.e. 13 days and 1 second later, while CONTRACT.md line 14 and SPEC.md section 3 say '14 days'. The real window is between 13 d 1 s and 14 d depending on the time of day of the last check-in. Consistent with the calendar-day model of check-ins; informational. If a full 14 x 24 h is intended, compare against last + INACTIVITY_DAYS + 1 or store timestamps.","line":200,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"test/scratch/Judge.t.sol test_inactivity13d1s (passes on the current code). MONDAY = 1800230400. capA creates guild 1, bob joins; at MONDAY + 1 days - 1 (Monday 23:59:59, day 20836) bob and capA check in. At MONDAY + 14 days - 1 (day 20849) removeInactive(bob) reverts 'still active'. At MONDAY + 14 days (day 20850 = 20836 + 14, 13 days 1 second after the check-in) removeInactive(bob) succeeds and members(bob).guildId == 0; m1 then joins and claimCaptain() succeeds against capA's 23:59:59 check-in at the same timestamp. Expected per CONTRACT.md line 14: 14 days without a check-in. Actual: 13 days and 1 second.","severity":"info","snippet":"        require(_day() >= last + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"still active\");","title":"14-day inactivity windows are compared in UTC day numbers, so removeInactive and claimCaptain succeed as little as 13 days and 1 second after the last check-in"}],"hash":"4fdbda1431f5eb88641dc69af751d06f43142c0c08907696945e13661863d74d","nodeId":"3d2b6c22-a526-4b78-be4c-2e251a980ffd","outcome":"completed","summary":"The review is complete and `.imd-findings.json` holds 8 findings and 15 coverage rows, with every snippet verified against the tree. Nothing is critical or high. No source file was changed; my scratch tests live only under test/scratch/.\n\n**What I kept, after reproducing each against the code**\n\n- **Low, staker read overflow (merged from 4 reports).** The product of two raw staking return words at src/GuildWars.sol:448 is checked arithmetic, so an oversized proxy answer reverts the whole check-in, against the documented \"no bonus, never a revert\" property. The tester's proof fails here with Panic(0x11) and is attached. The math specialist's proof does not compile because the repository vendors no forge-std.\n- **Low, season average follows the roster at the last touch (merged from 3 reports).** Kicking or leaving idle members at Sunday 23:59:59 turns a guild's war score into its best member's score, and kicked wallets rejoin at once. Reproduced for both kick and leave.\n- **Low, claimCaptain has no tenure requirement (merged from 2 reports).** A wallet holding the leaked code can join and seize an idle-captain guild in one block, then kick the founder.\n- **Low, lookingForGuild never cleared on join** and settable while in a guild.\n- **Low, freshness rule overstated and README gap.** The official docs confirm 10-minute rounds and that fresh principal reads zero once its round starts, so the contract's discount only shortens a window the staking contract already closes. README lacks the fee and trick-cost section SPEC section 6 requires.\n- **Info, threshold wording.** Live reads show quotePower(40 SQK, 0) is exactly 1 power unit, so the brief is right at zero NFT power. The docs formula explains both specialists' samples: NFT power multiplies the SQK rate, so heavy NFT holders qualify with about 2 SQK.\n- **Info, blank or duplicate guild names** (merged from 2 reports).\n- **Info, 14-day windows are day-number comparisons**, so the real window is 13 days and 1 second at the boundary.\n\n**What I dropped or corrected**\n\n- Both specialists' claims that the 40 SQK figure is wrong were contradicted by the contract's own quote, so they were corrected into the info note above rather than kept as stated.\n- The slither return-bomb lines do not reproduce as a revert: with the 100k gas cap a target can return at most roughly 230 KB, costing extra gas but never blocking a check-in, and the targets are the official proxies.\n\n**My own pass found nothing additional.** I traced the points conservation invariant, season freezing across rollover, constructor and manifest shape, and all twelve entry points. The existing suite passes with 89 tests.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":988984,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":3971850},"inputTokens":354,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":35275,"runtime":"claude","turns":27,"wallClockMs":522683}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":"00e7761c37b88622a7d754dfadfbb25729f8b181860a0c050b4a02a873ba7d97","device":"26d42bb29b53b9d8","findings":[{"description":"The external calls are guarded, but the subsequent checked multiplication sqkPower * (principal - fresh) is not. A staking response with large uint256 values can trigger Panic(0x11), reverting the entire check-in instead of retaining the base award. This contradicts CONTRACT.md Safety properties and the contract notice that a misbehaving dependency cannot block check-ins. The condition requires anomalous data from the configured staking dependency; the proof does not establish that ordinary users can cause these values in the official staking implementation. A full-precision ratio or overflow-aware fallback would preserve check-in availability.","line":448,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","proof":"// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT\npragma solidity ^0.8.24;\n\nimport {GuildWars} from \"src/GuildWars.sol\";\n\ninterface OverflowProofVm {\n    function warp(uint256) external;\n}\n\ncontract OverflowProofMining {\n    function checkpointStatus() external pure returns (bool, uint64, bool) {\n        return (false, 100, false);\n    }\n}\n\ncontract OverflowProofStaking {\n    function accountPower(address) external pure returns (uint256, uint256) {\n        return (0, type(uint256).max);\n    }\n\n    function stakeOf(address) external pure returns (uint256, uint256, uint64) {\n        return (3, 1, 101);\n    }\n}\n\ncontract StakingOverflowProofTest {\n    function test_largeStakingResponseMustNotBlockCheckIn() public {\n        OverflowProofVm vm = OverflowProofVm(address(uint160(uint256(keccak256(\"hevm cheat code\")))));\n        vm.warp(1_800_230_400);\n        GuildWars game = new GuildWars(address(new OverflowProofMining()), address(new OverflowProofStaking()), 1e18);\n        game.createGuild(\"Overflow proof\", 5, keccak256(\"invite\"));\n\n        // Either compute the large ratio safely or ignore the anomalous staking bonus.\n        // In both cases the promised base check-in must remain live.\n        uint256 points = game.checkIn();\n        require(points == 10 || points == 12, \"unexpected first check-in points\");\n        require(game.guildSeasonTotal(1, game.currentSeason()) == points, \"check-in was not recorded\");\n    }\n}","reproduction":"Deploy with minStakerPower=1e18. Mining returns (false,100,false); staking accountPower returns (0,type(uint256).max) and stakeOf returns (3,1,101). At timestamp 1800230400 createGuild(\"Overflow proof\",5,keccak256(\"invite\")), then checkIn(). Expected: a recorded first check-in with 10 points if the anomalous bonus is ignored, or 12 if the ratio is calculated safely. Actual: Panic(0x11) and no check-in recorded. Reproduced with forge test --match-path test/scratch/StakingOverflowProof.t.sol -vvv on Foundry 1.8.5 / solc 0.8.24.","severity":"low","title":"Oversized staking responses can revert check-in despite guarded-read guarantee"}],"hash":"58796ecf6b94a3c7bfde7a31b5307baf4db74e2e3dfc2bcdbd682969df5d58f8","nodeId":"f3f4e1b4-b424-44fc-abe1-d851c6b25099","outcome":"completed","summary":"Added failure-path, fuzz, and stateful invariant tests.\n\n`forge build` and seeded `forge test` pass: **89 tests**, including **24,576 invariant calls**.\n\nReported one low-severity staking-response overflow with a failing proof in `.imd-findings.json`.\n\nFiles are present. Git staging failed because `.git/index.lock` is on a read-only filesystem.","treeHash":"ce6e9916d5f95d018f275290bcf977bc1476aa9c","usage":{"cachedInputTokens":2236544,"cost":{"source":"estimated","usdMicros":5137864},"inputTokens":100042,"model":"gpt-6-astra","outputTokens":38018,"runtime":"codex","turns":8,"wallClockMs":1273170}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"a7ac9f7a7687c25e","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"The guild score for a season is guildSeasonTotal / guildSeasonMembers, and both terms are rewritten by _touch and _removeMember at every roster change up to the last second of the season (Sunday 23:59:59). kick() carries no cool-down (only leave() sets cooldownUntil, GuildWars.sol:175), so a captain can kick every member whose season points are below the guild average right before the season rolls over, raising the frozen score to the best member's score, and have them all rejoin at Monday 00:00:00 with no penalty. The documented anti-abuse argument that 'the average-based score makes empty wallets unprofitable' (CONTRACT.md:30, SPEC.md:87) therefore does not hold: idle members cost the guild nothing, because the captain sheds them for free before each settlement. The effective war score of any guild with a cooperating captain is max(member points), not the average, so a 5-member guild in which one member was active beats a solo guild that out-scored its real average all week. Economics: cost = 4 kick transactions + 4 join transactions of Sepolia gas per week; gain = +300 tier points per war that would otherwise have been lost. Tier points are cosmetic, hence low. CONTRACT.md:34 documents that kicked wallets have no cool-down, but not that this voids the average-based scoring; the 'legitimate feature turned against the protocol' is undocumented.","line":406,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Reproduced in test/scratch/Econ.t.sol test_pruneAtSeasonEndMakesAverageEqualBestMember (passes against the current code, demonstrating the behaviour). State: Monday 00:00 UTC; capA creates guild A (5 seats) and 4 idle wallets join with the code; capB creates solo guild B. Days 0..6: capA checks in every day (70 points); capB checks in days 0..5 (60 points). seasonScore(A) = 70*1e6/5 = 14e6, seasonScore(B) = 60e6. At Sunday 23:59:59 (MONDAY+7days-1) capA calls kick() on the four idle wallets: _removeMember subtracts 0 points and _touch sets guildSeasonMembers[A][S] = 1, so seasonScore(A) becomes 70e6. At Monday 00:00:00 capA calls submitWar(S, A, B): scoreA = 70e6 > scoreB = 60e6, A receives +300 tier points, B +0. The four kicked wallets then call join(A, code) immediately (no cool-down) and A has 5 members again. Expected (SPEC.md:42, README.md:14): a guild's season score is the average of all its members; a 5-member guild averaging 14 should lose to a guild averaging 60. Actual: A wins with a score equal to its single best member. Minimal fix options that keep the design: freeze guildSeasonMembers[g][S] to the maximum member count seen in season S (so pruning cannot lower the divisor), or apply the 24 h cool-down to kicked wallets as well, or exclude from the divisor only members who joined after the season started.","severity":"low","snippet":"        guildSeasonMembers[guildId][season] = g.memberCount;","title":"Season-end roster pruning rewrites a guild's average to its best member's score at zero cost (kick has no cool-down, member count re-snapshotted until the last second)"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"The staking reads are deliberately guarded (staticcall with gas cap, length checks, uint256 decoding) so that 'a codeless or misbehaving target simply means no bonus' (GuildWars.sol:107-109, CONTRACT.md:9). The freshness formula is the one place where decoded words are combined with checked arithmetic: sqkPower * (principal - fresh) overflows when the staking implementation returns sqkPower and principal whose product exceeds 2**256, and the checked multiplication reverts checkIn() with Panic(0x11). The condition is only reachable through the words the official SqueekStaking proxy returns (today sqkPower is ~5e20 and principal ~2.7e21 for the live staker 0x06142b4b990ce6b3f004c8e8df85086e22ccb745, so no overflow is possible with current values), so an upstream upgrade, bug or a repointed proxy is required. Because GuildWars has no owner and immutable addresses, if that ever happened every affected wallet's daily check-in would revert for as long as the staking contract answered that way, with no remedy on this side. Impact is on cosmetic points and depends on a third party, hence low; it is reported because it contradicts an explicit stated safety property, not as an exploit.","line":448,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Reproduced in test/scratch/Econ.t.sol test_isStakerOverflowRevertsCheckIn and test_isStakerMaxWordsRevertCheckIn (both pass against the current code, demonstrating the revert). State: GuildWars deployed with minStakerPower = 1e18, mining mock returns nextRound 654, wallet capA is in a guild and has not checked in today. The staking target answers accountPower(capA) with (0, 2**200) and stakeOf(capA) with (principal = 2**60, freshPrincipal = 1, freshUntilRound = 1000). Call checkIn() from capA. Expected per GuildWars.sol:109 and CONTRACT.md:9: the check-in succeeds with 10 points (or 12 if the read is deemed valid). Actual: the call reverts with Panic(uint256) code 0x11 because 2**200 * (2**60 - 1) > 2**256 at line 448; the same happens for (type(uint256).max, type(uint256).max, 1, type(uint256).max). Minimal fix: wrap the freshness computation so it cannot revert, e.g. compute with Math.mulDiv-style 512-bit arithmetic, or treat sqkPower > type(uint128).max or principal > type(uint128).max as a failed read (return false) before multiplying, or compute effective = sqkPower - sqkPower * fresh / principal only when the product cannot overflow.","severity":"low","snippet":"            effective = fresh >= principal ? 0 : (sqkPower * (principal - fresh)) / principal;","title":"_isStaker can revert the whole check-in with an arithmetic panic on large staking return words, breaking the 'misbehaving read means no bonus, never a revert' guarantee"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"The brief fixes minStakerPower = 1000000000000000000 and describes it as '1 power unit, about 40 SQK staked'. CONTRACT.md:31 says the value is a raw accountPower().sqkPower number to be picked with the official unit in mind. On Sepolia today the official staking proxy 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca reports for wallet 0x06142b4b990ce6b3f004c8e8df85086e22ccb745: accountPower = (nftPower 6600e18, sqkPower 518.59e18) and stakeOf = (principal 2729.42e18, freshPrincipal 0, freshUntilRound 575), i.e. about 0.19 power per SQK, so 1e18 power corresponds to roughly 5.3 SQK for this account, not 40. The power unit may include a time or tier multiplier, so the exact SQK equivalent cannot be fixed from one account, but the documented threshold rationale ('excludes dust', SPEC.md:39) should be re-derived from the staking contract's power formula before launch. This is a parameter check in the economics area, not a code defect; the formula and gas budget (accountPower and stakeOf cost about 14k and 16k gas of execution for this loaded account, far under the 100k cap) behave as intended.","line":115,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"On Sepolia (chainId 11155111) run: cast call 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca 'accountPower(address)(uint256,uint256)' 0x06142b4b990ce6b3f004c8e8df85086e22ccb745 and cast call ... 'stakeOf(address)(uint256,uint256,uint64)' with the same wallet. Observed on 2026-11-08 at block ~12089668: sqkPower = 518590122304910088125, principal = 2729421696341632042767. Expected per the brief: 1e18 power is about 40 SQK, so this account with ~2729 SQK should show about 68e18 power. Actual: 518e18, about 7.6x more, meaning a wallet with roughly 5-6 SQK staked (if power is linear in principal) already receives the x1.25 staker bonus. Fix: confirm the power formula from the official docs or implementation (0xf7027f9759d98190638359920e0422d316b4ea92 is the current implementation behind the proxy) and set minStakerPower to the value that actually excludes dust, or correct the documentation.","severity":"info","snippet":"        minStakerPower = minStakerPower_;","title":"Constructor argument minStakerPower = 1e18 does not match the stated 'about 40 SQK staked' against the live SqueekStaking power unit"}],"hash":"9264667bf9ce198ad182c1e47d37e8acaeca61d8c0930a43833415e965329b6e","nodeId":"481bc120-e873-4b44-8922-cf0d847fd3aa","outcome":"completed","summary":"The review is complete and `.imd-findings.json` holds 3 findings plus 15 coverage rows covering all 12 entry points.\n\n**What I checked.** I read the contract against the Senior Auditor's Mindset and the Economic Security, Invariant and Flow Gap guides, traced every entry point's effect on season accounting, and verified the two external dependencies on live Sepolia. The existing 38 tests pass. Each finding has a reproduction run under `test/scratch/` with the project's own mock harness.\n\n**Findings written:**\n\n- **Low: season-end pruning rewrites the average.** The member count and total are re-snapshotted on every roster change until Sunday 23:59:59, and kicked wallets have no cool-down. A captain kicks every below-average member in the last second, the frozen score becomes the best member's score, and they all rejoin Monday for free. Reproduced: a 5-member guild with a true average of 14 beats a solo guild averaging 60. This voids the documented \"average makes empty wallets unprofitable\" argument. Kick-without-cooldown is documented, but this consequence is not.\n- **Low: `_isStaker` can revert a check-in.** The freshness formula multiplies two words decoded from the staking contract with checked arithmetic. Oversized return values make `checkIn` revert with an overflow panic instead of \"no bonus\", contradicting the stated guarantee that a misbehaving target never blocks a check-in. Only reachable if the official proxy misbehaves, so low.\n- **Info: `minStakerPower` unit.** A live staker with about 2,729 SQK staked shows about 519e18 power, so 1e18 power corresponds to roughly 5 SQK, not the \"about 40 SQK\" the brief states. Power may include a multiplier, so this is a parameter to confirm before launch, not a code defect.\n\n**What holds.** The accounting invariant (guild total equals the sum of current members' season points) holds on every removal path. Past seasons are frozen. `submitWar` divides safely, matches the view, and cannot produce false ties with 20 or fewer members. `removeInactive` can only raise a guild's average. Live selectors, return shapes and gas (about 14k to 23k execution against a 100k cap) all check out, and staking's `freshUntilRound` is in the same counter space as mining's `nextRound`.\n\n**Not reached.** The official docs and ABI pages sit behind a Cloudflare challenge, so the power formula and the exact meaning of `freshUntilRound` are confirmed only from live chain values, not from documentation. Opponent choice and two-guild tier-point farming were checked and are already documented limitations, so they were not re-reported.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":1105700,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":4324274},"inputTokens":386,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":38108,"runtime":"claude","turns":30,"wallClockMs":585807}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"401c4383398af47c","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"Access x asymmetry seam. claimCaptain() (src/GuildWars.sol:216-225) only checks that the caller is a member of the guild and that captainActiveDay is at least 14 days old. It does not require the claimant to have been a member for any time or to have checked in even once. join() (src/GuildWars.sol:156-166) is open to anyone who presents the invite code while recruiting is on, and CONTRACT.md line 32 already documents that the code is published in calldata by every join. The two facts chain: the moment the captain's last check-in is 14 days old, the first wallet that holds the code, member or not, can call join() and claimCaptain() back to back in a single transaction, then kick() every long-standing member, rotate the code and close recruiting. The claim guard was meant to protect the guild against an inactive captain; combined with the public join path it also lets an outsider win the race against the real members, who were relying on the same 14-day clock. Impact is cosmetic (guild name, tier points and seats carry no monetary value), hence low. Fix that preserves the design: require the claimant to have some tenure or activity in the guild, e.g. `require(m.lastCheckInDay != 0 && m.lastCheckInDay >= m.joinedDay, \"check in first\")` or `require(_day() >= m.joinedDay + 1, \"too new\")`, so that join and claim cannot happen in the same day.","line":221,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Verified with a scratch Foundry test (mocks not needed, dependencies without code give base points). State: capA creates guild 1 on day D with code hash keccak256(\"s3cret\") and recruiting on (the default); bob joins and checks in; capA never checks in. At D+14 days, eve (never a member) sends one transaction that calls join(1, \"s3cret\") then claimCaptain() then kick(bob) then kick(capA) then setInviteCode(keccak256(\"mine-now\")). Expected: a wallet that joined seconds ago cannot take the guild over long-standing members. Actual: all five calls succeed; getGuild(1).captain == eve, members(bob).guildId == 0, members(capA).guildId == 0, and eve is the sole member of guild 1 with its name and tier points.","severity":"low","snippet":"        require(_day() >= g.captainActiveDay + INACTIVITY_DAYS, \"captain active\");","title":"claimCaptain has no tenure or activity requirement: a non-member holding the (leaked) invite code can join and seize an inactive-captain guild in one transaction"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Asymmetry (storage lifecycle). setLookingForGuild() (src/GuildWars.sol:241-244) is the only writer of members[w].lookingForGuild and it has no guard at all; the paired state transitions that end the search, _addMember() via join()/createGuild() (src/GuildWars.sol:379-385), never reset the flag. The flag is also settable by a wallet that is already in a guild, including a captain. SPEC.md section 5 builds the recruiting page from this flag (\"an opt-in board of wallets that flagged 'looking for a guild'\") and the contract is the only data source, so the board shows wallets that cannot join anything (they would revert with \"already in a guild\"). Captains who share their code with such a wallet leak the invite code (see CONTRACT.md line 32) for nothing. Severity low: no value at stake, but it is a reachable inconsistency in exposed state. Fix: clear the flag in _addMember (`m.lookingForGuild = false;` and emit LookingForGuild(wallet, false)) and/or require `members[msg.sender].guildId == 0` in setLookingForGuild when setting it to true.","line":242,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"Verified with a scratch Foundry test. State: capA creates guild 1 with code hash keccak256(\"s3cret\"). Steps: eve calls setLookingForGuild(true); eve calls join(1, \"s3cret\"); read members(eve). Expected: lookingForGuild == false once eve is in a guild. Actual: members(eve).guildId == 1 and members(eve).lookingForGuild == true. Second step: capA (captain of guild 1) calls setLookingForGuild(true); members(capA).lookingForGuild == true although capA cannot join any guild.","severity":"low","snippet":"        members[msg.sender].lookingForGuild = looking;","title":"lookingForGuild flag is never cleared by join/createGuild and can be set while in a guild, so the recruiting board exposes wallets that are not available"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Identity confusion. createGuild() validates only the length and character set of the name (src/GuildWars.sol:409-418) and stores it; nothing records which names are taken. The contract identifies guilds by id, but SPEC.md sections 5 and 7 render rankings, war cards (\"Midnight Runners beat Nap Nation by 14%\") and trophies by name, so any wallet can create a guild whose name is byte-identical to a top guild's and collect social credit for it or confuse joiners. The spec does not demand unique names, so this is reported as info for the author to decide; a mapping `bytes32 => bool` keyed on keccak256(bytes(name)) (or a case-folded form) checked in createGuild would enforce uniqueness at one storage slot per guild.","line":140,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"capA calls createGuild(\"Midnight Runners\", 5, h1) -> returns 1. eve calls createGuild(\"Midnight Runners\", 5, h2) -> returns 2 and emits GuildCreated(2, eve, \"Midnight Runners\", 5). Expected (if uniqueness were intended): the second call reverts. Actual: both guilds exist with the identical name and getGuild(1).name == getGuild(2).name.","severity":"info","snippet":"        _validateName(name);","title":"Guild names are not unique, so a second guild can impersonate an existing one in rankings and war cards"}],"hash":"9ae4c8c90a4f0fb6b9e53e91400ab6f4f15b44f35fd6f73d88b67710cc79779d","nodeId":"47ed32c1-c5e3-431f-972e-ebc8af56a5fe","outcome":"completed","summary":"Review complete. The findings file is written and validated; no source files were changed.\n\n**Result: the permission model holds.** Three low or informational findings are in `.imd-findings.json`, each with a reproduction run against the current code. Nothing reached medium, so no finding carries a proof test.\n\n- **Low: `claimCaptain` has no tenure requirement.** Once a captain's last check-in is 14 days old, a non-member who holds the leaked invite code can call `join`, `claimCaptain`, `kick` and `setInviteCode` in one transaction and take the guild from its real members. Confirmed with a scratch Foundry test. Suggested fix keeps the design: require one check-in or one day of membership before claiming.\n- **Low: the looking-for-guild flag is never cleared.** Joining or creating a guild leaves it set, and a wallet already in a guild can set it, so the recruiting board lists wallets that cannot join. Confirmed by test.\n- **Info: guild names are not unique**, so a second guild can carry an existing guild's exact name in rankings and war cards. The spec does not demand uniqueness, so this is left to the author.\n\n**What I verified and found sound.** Every captain-only path checks the current captain of the caller's own guild. The captain can never be removed by any path, so captain functions cannot be orphaned. Past-season totals and member counts are frozen against kicks, joins and leaves. Season accounting cannot underflow or touch another guild. The staticcall decode order matches the official ABI I fetched from docs.squeekchain.com, and the live Sepolia proxies at the brief's addresses answer those reads. `POWER_UNIT` on the live staking contract is 1e18 with 40 SQK per unit, so the constructor's `minStakerPower` means what the brief says.\n\n**Coverage.** All 12 entry points have a row, plus four rows for invariants and trust assumptions. The documented limitations in CONTRACT.md (captain picks the opponent, no refusal, no cooldown after kick, leaked invite codes, tier snapshot timing) were each re-traced and are reported as design, not defects. Static-analysis leads in my area (strict equalities, the unsafe cast, return-bomb, unused constant) were checked and none is a real defect.\n\n**Not done.** The Math, Economics and Control-flow guides belong to the other specialists and were not run as passes here. The three scratch tests were deleted after they passed, since none of the findings is severe enough to require a proof.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":899449,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":4630938},"inputTokens":322,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":45185,"runtime":"claude","turns":26,"wallClockMs":733962}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"f9cb4fd544aa3c68","findings":[{"citation":"resolved","description":"The constructor refuses to deploy unless both dependency addresses already have code. The launch floor (.imd/reads/protected/evm_contracts/Contracts.protected.t.sol) deploys the application bytecode via CREATE2 on an empty local chain where only the factory is etched; the official proxies 0x2dccb11f... and 0x50fd1780... have no code there, so `new GuildWars(mining, staking, 1e18)` reverts with \"bad mining\" and the harness fails with \"application 0 constructor failed\". The evm-contracts-launch rules say exactly this: a constructor that requires an address to have code reverts there and parks the launch; take such values as arguments and check the live contract on first use. The check adds nothing at runtime: _readRound/_isStaker already treat a codeless target (staticcall to an EOA succeeds with empty returndata, caught by the length checks) as 'no bonus'. Minimal fix: keep only the non-zero checks on lines 92-93 (optionally also keep the values immutable and document that a wrong address simply disables bonuses).","line":92,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","proof":"// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT\npragma solidity ^0.8.24;\n\nimport \"forge-std/Test.sol\";\nimport \"src/GuildWars.sol\";\n\n/// @notice The launch rehearsal deploys every application on an empty chain where the official\n/// SqueekMining / SqueekStaking proxies do not exist. GuildWars' constructor requires code at both\n/// addresses, so the deployment reverts there and the launch is parked.\n/// Fails on the current code (\"bad mining\"); passes once the constructor stops requiring code at the\n/// dependency addresses (and checks the live contracts on first use instead).\ncontract ConstructorEmptyChainTest is Test {\n    address constant MINING = 0x2dCcB11fcC2dEfdd188555e45aCb52231e82e218;\n    address constant STAKING = 0x50fd1780526C3186A0c037c7622203bC4fb611ca;\n    uint256 constant MIN_STAKER_POWER = 1e18;\n\n    function test_constructorDeploysWithoutDependencyCodeOnChain() public {\n        vm.chainId(11155111);\n        assertEq(MINING.code.length, 0, \"precondition: no code at mining on the rehearsal chain\");\n        assertEq(STAKING.code.length, 0, \"precondition: no code at staking on the rehearsal chain\");\n\n        GuildWars gw = new GuildWars(MINING, STAKING, MIN_STAKER_POWER);\n\n        assertEq(gw.mining(), MINING);\n        assertEq(gw.staking(), STAKING);\n        assertEq(gw.minStakerPower(), MIN_STAKER_POWER);\n    }\n}","reproduction":"State: fresh chain with no code at 0x2dccb11fcc2defdd188555e45acb52231e82e218 or 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca (the protected harness; also any plain `forge test`). Call: `new GuildWars(0x2dccb11fcc2defdd188555e45acb52231e82e218, 0x50fd1780526c3186a0c037c7622203bc4fb611ca, 1000000000000000000)`. Expected: contract deploys with the three immutables set. Actual: revert \"bad mining\" (and \"bad staking\" once the first is removed). Verified with test/scratch/ConstructorEmptyChain.t.sol: fails with `bad mining` on the current code, passes once the `.code.length > 0` conjuncts are removed.","severity":"medium","snippet":"        require(mining_ != address(0) && mining_.code.length > 0, \"bad mining\");\n        require(staking_ != address(0) && staking_.code.length > 0, \"bad staking\");","title":"Constructor requires code at the SqueekMining/SqueekStaking addresses, so deployment reverts on the launch rehearsal chain and parks the launch"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"CONTRACT.md promises that a 'failed, reverting or malformed read only means no bonus' and the NatSpec on _readRound says 'never reverts, whatever the target does'. The staticcall result is guarded only for success and length (>= 96). The decode then uses Solidity's ABI decoder, which validates `bool` words: any word other than 0 or 1 in slot 0 or slot 2 makes abi.decode revert inside GuildWars, outside the staticcall guard. checkIn() -> _computePoints -> _readRound therefore reverts for every member, with no bonus-free fallback. The mining address is a 'guarded transparent proxy' per the official deployment record and is immutable here with no admin, so if an upgrade or replacement of SqueekMining ever returns a status word that is not 0/1 (e.g. an enum/uint8 status in the first slot), check-ins stop until the proxy changes back. The staking decodes on lines 385 and 391 use only uint256 and cannot revert; only this line breaks the guarantee. Minimal fix: decode all three words as uint256 (`(, uint256 n,) = abi.decode(ret, (uint256, uint256, uint256));`) or read the word with assembly/`bytes` slicing, so a malformed read yields (false, 0) as documented.","line":374,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","proof":"// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT\npragma solidity ^0.8.24;\n\nimport \"forge-std/Test.sol\";\nimport \"src/GuildWars.sol\";\n\n/// @dev Mining stand-in whose checkpointStatus() returns 96 well-formed bytes whose first word is\n/// not a canonical boolean (2 instead of 0/1), as an upgraded or replaced proxy could.\ncontract MiningNonCanonicalBool {\n    fallback(bytes calldata) external returns (bytes memory) {\n        return abi.encode(uint256(2), uint256(654), uint256(1));\n    }\n}\n\ncontract StakingNoStake {\n    fallback(bytes calldata) external returns (bytes memory) {\n        return abi.encode(uint256(0), uint256(0), uint256(0));\n    }\n}\n\n/// @notice CONTRACT.md: a failed, reverting or malformed read \"only means no bonus\"; _readRound is\n/// documented as \"never reverts, whatever the target does\". abi.decode(ret, (bool, uint256, bool))\n/// reverts on a non-canonical bool word, so every checkIn() reverts while the mining proxy returns it.\n/// Fails on the current code (checkIn reverts with no data); passes once the decode is made tolerant\n/// (e.g. decode the words as uint256 or wrap the decode so a malformed read yields \"no bonus\").\ncontract GuardedReadDecodeTest is Test {\n    GuildWars gw;\n    address alice = address(0xA11CE);\n\n    function setUp() public {\n        vm.warp(1_800_000_000);\n        gw = new GuildWars(address(new MiningNonCanonicalBool()), address(new StakingNoStake()), 1e18);\n        vm.prank(alice);\n        gw.createGuild(\"Alpha\", 5, keccak256(\"code\"));\n    }\n\n    function test_checkInSurvivesMalformedMiningRead() public {\n        vm.prank(alice);\n        uint256 points = gw.checkIn();\n        assertEq(points, 10, \"malformed read must mean no bonus, not a revert\");\n        (, uint32 joinedDay, uint32 lastCheckInDay,,,,,) = gw.members(alice);\n        assertEq(lastCheckInDay, joinedDay);\n    }\n}","reproduction":"State: GuildWars deployed with `mining` = a contract whose checkpointStatus() returns abi.encode(uint256(2), uint256(654), uint256(1)) (96 bytes, first word not a canonical bool); alice created a guild. Call: alice -> checkIn(). Expected (per CONTRACT.md / NatSpec): succeeds, returns 10 points, lastCheckInDay updated. Actual: EvmError: Revert from abi.decode; no check-in is possible for any member while the target behaves this way. Verified with test/scratch/GuardedReadDecode.t.sol: fails on the current code, passes when line 374 decodes (uint256, uint256, uint256).","severity":"medium","snippet":"        (, uint256 n,) = abi.decode(ret, (bool, uint256, bool));","title":"_readRound is documented as never reverting, but abi.decode(..., (bool, uint256, bool)) reverts on a non-canonical bool word and then blocks every checkIn()"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"The guild stores only the hash of the invite code, but join(guildId, code) takes the pre-image as a plain string argument. The first legitimate join publishes the code in the transaction input (and in the public mempool before inclusion), so from then on any wallet can join the guild while `recruiting` is true and seats remain, regardless of whether the captain invited them. Uninvited members with zero check-ins lower the guild's season average (score = total / memberCount) until the captain notices and kicks them; the captain's only defences are setRecruiting(false) or rotating the code with setInviteCode, and each new code leaks again on its first use. Fix options that preserve the design: let the captain whitelist addresses (or a per-invitee code hash keccak256(code, invitee)) so the calldata is only useful to the intended wallet, or bind the code to msg.sender in the hash (codeHash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(code, invitee)) checked against keccak256(abi.encodePacked(code, msg.sender))).","line":144,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"State: capA creates guild 1 with codeHash = keccak256(\"s3cret\"), 5 seats, recruiting. Bob (invited) calls join(1, \"s3cret\"); the string \"s3cret\" is now visible in that transaction's input data. Eve (not invited) copies it and calls join(1, \"s3cret\"). Expected: only wallets the captain invited can join. Actual: Eve's join succeeds; getGuild(1).memberCount == 3. Reproduced in test/scratch/Behaviour.t.sol::test_inviteCodeReplay (passes, demonstrating the behaviour).","severity":"low","snippet":"        require(keccak256(bytes(code)) == g.codeHash, \"wrong code\");","title":"Invite code is revealed in plain calldata by the first join() and can be replayed by anyone while the guild is recruiting"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"Only one of the two captains needs to sign, and lines 288-289 mark both guilds as settled for that season. A guild therefore cannot refuse an opponent: any same-tier captain who was active that season (including a one-wallet guild created for the purpose, whose single member checking in daily reaches the maximum attainable average) can pair itself against a target guild first, take +300 if its average is higher (or force a +150 tie), and leave the target with `warDone[season][target] = true`, so the target's own captain can no longer submit the pairing it wanted. CONTRACT.md states that captains choose their opponent inside their tier as a known limitation; the additional effect not covered there is that the opponent loses its single war for that season and its captain's later submitWar reverts with \"already settled\". Minimal fix within the design: require both captains (e.g. the second captain accepts a pending pairing, or the opponent's captain signs an EIP-712 acceptance), or let the pairing be re-submitted by the involuntary side against a different guild when it was not the submitter.","line":281,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"State: season S; guild A (capA) and guild B (capB) both Bronze, each with one check-in of 10 points in S. Monday of S+1: capA calls submitWar(S, A, B). Expected (B never agreed): B keeps its war for S. Actual: warDone[S][B] == true and both guilds receive +150; capB -> submitWar(S, B, A) reverts \"already settled\", and so does any submitWar(S, B, X). Reproduced in test/scratch/Behaviour.t.sol::test_warSlotConsumedWithoutConsent (passes, demonstrating the behaviour).","severity":"low","snippet":"        require(msg.sender == _guilds[guildA].captain || msg.sender == _guilds[guildB].captain, \"not a captain of these guilds\");","title":"submitWar lets one captain spend the other guild's only war slot of a season without that guild's consent"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"CONTRACT.md and SPEC.md describe a 24 h cool-down after leaving a guild (also blocking createGuild). The cool-down is written only in leave(); _removeMember as reached from kick() (line 170) and removeInactive() (line 182) does not set it, so a wallet removed by its captain can join another guild or create one in the same block. A wallet cooperating with a captain (or controlling both) can hop guilds without any cool-down. The daily check-in limit is per wallet and the removed wallet's current-season points are deleted on removal, so no points are duplicated; the impact is only that the documented anti-hopping rule is bypassable by captain cooperation. If the rule is meant to apply to every departure, set cooldownUntil in _removeMember (or in kick) as well; if not, document the asymmetry.","line":156,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"State: guild A (capA) and guild B (capB) exist; bob joins A. capA -> kick(bob); bob -> join(B, code) in the same block. Expected per docs: revert \"cool-down\" for 24 h. Actual: join succeeds, members[bob].guildId == B. Reproduced in test/scratch/Behaviour.t.sol::test_kickHasNoCooldown.","severity":"info","snippet":"        m.cooldownUntil = uint64(block.timestamp) + LEAVE_COOLDOWN;","title":"Only leave() applies the 24 h cool-down; kick() and removeInactive() let the wallet join or create a guild immediately"},{"citation":"resolved","description":"_touch snapshots the tier from the live tierPoints at the first activity of a season, while submitWar for an earlier season can be called at any later time. A captain controls the order on Monday: checking in first freezes the old tier for the new season, then submitting the previous season's win raises tierPoints past a threshold without changing the new snapshot. The guild is then matched (tier mismatch check, line 284) against lower-tier guilds for one more season than its points warrant; several unsettled wins can be banked and submitted together to stretch this. This is consistent with the documented lazy snapshot and the known 'choose your opponent' limitation, and tier points are cosmetic, so it is informational; if it matters, snapshot the tier at the moment of submitWar for the season being settled (tier at season start) or require season S wars to be settled before the first touch of S+2.","line":354,"path":"src/GuildWars.sol","reproduction":"State: guild A has 900 tierPoints (Bronze) and an unsettled winning pairing for season S against Bronze guild B. Monday of S+1, 00:01: capA -> checkIn() (guildSeasonTier[A][S+1] = 0). 00:02: capA -> submitWar(S, A, B) -> tierPoints 1200 (Silver, getGuild shows tier 1). Expected: a Silver guild is matched with Silver guilds in S+1. Actual: guildSeasonTier[A][S+1] stays 0, so submitWar(S+1, A, anyBronzeGuild) passes the tier check while submitWar(S+1, A, anySilverGuild) reverts \"tier mismatch\". Sequence exercised in test/scratch/Behaviour.t.sol::test_tierSnapshotOrdering (tier points accrue after the season's first touch).","severity":"info","snippet":"            guildSeasonTier[guildId][season] = tierOf(g.tierPoints);","title":"Season tier snapshot is taken at the first touch, and submitWar has no deadline, so a guild can keep a lower-tier snapshot for a season after crossing a tier threshold"}],"hash":"cb47c5a82820413d095d260ace928532fe4aefd3a3e92397b947c8c88e1e3818","nodeId":"5d2e6a31-08f6-45bb-ad0e-1942cc0d60cb","outcome":"completed","summary":"The review is complete. Six findings are written to `.imd-findings.json`, two of them with Foundry proofs that fail on the current code and pass on a patched copy. No tracked file was changed.\n\n**Findings**\n\n- **Medium, launch blocker.** The constructor requires code at the mining and staking addresses (`src/GuildWars.sol:92`). The protected launch harness deploys on an empty chain, so deployment reverts with \"bad mining\" and the launch parks. The check is also redundant: the guarded reads already treat a codeless target as \"no bonus\". Proof attached.\n- **Medium, broken guarantee.** The \"never reverts\" read in `_readRound` decodes the result as a bool (`src/GuildWars.sol:374`). Solidity's decoder rejects any word other than 0 or 1, so if the upgradeable SqueekMining proxy ever returns a non-canonical status word, every check-in reverts with no admin able to repair it. Proof attached. Fix is to decode the three words as uint256.\n- **Low.** The invite code is a plain string argument to `join`, so the first join publishes it in calldata and anyone can replay it while recruiting is open.\n- **Low.** One captain can settle a war for both guilds. The unwilling opponent loses its only war slot for that season and its own later submission reverts with \"already settled\".\n- **Info.** Only `leave` sets the 24 hour cool-down. Kicked or inactivity-removed wallets can join or create a guild immediately. No points are duplicated.\n- **Info.** The tier snapshot is taken at the first touch of a season and `submitWar` has no deadline, so a captain can order Monday's calls to keep a lower-tier snapshot for one extra season.\n\n**What held up.** A 256-run randomized check confirmed the season accounting invariant: each guild's season total always equals the sum of its current members' season points, with no underflow in member removal. Access control on every state-changing function matches its effect. There is no ETH, token, delegatecall, selfdestruct, proxy, owner, or post-deployment configuration. Arithmetic is bounded well below its types.\n\n**Coverage.** I read `src/GuildWars.sol` in full plus CONTRACT.md, SPEC.md and README.md. I reached the live Sepolia SqueekMining and SqueekStaking proxies over RPC: checkpointStatus returns a valid triple, POWER_UNIT is 1e18 and sqkPerPower is 40e18, so the brief's minStakerPower of 1e18 does equal about 40 SQK. The official ABI files match the contract's interfaces exactly, including the checkpointStatus selector. I could not read the proxies' implementation source, so the freshness interpretation of `freshUntilRound > nextRound` remains unverified, as CONTRACT.md itself flags. The ABI directory index returned 404 but the individual ABI files were fetched.\n\n**For the adapter.** Remove the two `.code.length` conjuncts and change the bool decode to uint256; both proof tests under `test/scratch/` then pass. The low and info items are design choices to confirm or document with the requester.","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":1309986,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":4342976},"inputTokens":578,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":42094,"runtime":"claude","turns":36,"wallClockMs":759637}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":"c2b30d54841f3f269164449c8ccfd9ae4506af6500b9ed4f9743a950a84ab8b1","device":"3d294003c7683307","findings":[],"hash":"e2d653ca16410430490d9987ddfcc56261a632882a7bad26db11400f2b0aa2d7","nodeId":"0bb8a81a-d9ef-4267-9a9e-1d1114480674","outcome":"completed","summary":"Created [launch.json](/home/seat/.identitymd/work/f9a14fbe-569d-444e-b658-769b2ff40998/0bb8a81a-d9ef-4267-9a9e-1d1114480674/launch.json) for only `GuildWars`, using the exact approved constructor arguments.\n\nManifest/ABI checks and `forge build` passed. All 38 tests passed with the supplied fuzz seed. Only `launch.json` is submitted.\n\nDeployment and explorer verification remain downstream steps.","treeHash":"5d732e411e539f5d3529d1ef2498a6a8c0123d9b","usage":{"cachedInputTokens":149504,"cost":{"source":"estimated","usdMicros":950414},"inputTokens":63961,"model":"gpt-6-astra","outputTokens":3226,"runtime":"codex","turns":3,"wallClockMs":94381}},{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":"ead0f91f32d6d5b36b91a222d64672f024ede6cd872e9f4e7e9aa629cc5bf205","device":"99e4819277ea59fc","findings":[],"hash":"e41b7d65062468b8c100b1db3dcdc11a854ca52273a9e0749f2ae665413e0a42","nodeId":"9844146d-27df-4532-8acd-859df08e6fde","outcome":"completed","summary":"Everything is complete and verified. Final recap:\n\n**Outcome.** `GuildWars` now deploys through the launch factory on an empty chain and keeps its documented behaviour. `forge build` is clean and `forge test` passes with the verifier's fuzz seed.\n\n| Check | Result |\n|---|---|\n| forge build | success |\n| forge test (seed 0x0658…3960) | 38 tests pass, plus 1 scratch floor rehearsal |\n| Same tests on the original source | 5 fail, exactly the audit-fix tests |\n\n**Changes to `src/GuildWars.sol`** (both audit mediums reproduced and are fixed):\n\n- **Constructor** keeps only the zero-address checks. The `code.length > 0` requirement made CREATE2 on the empty rehearsal chain revert with \"bad mining\". The runtime reads already treat a codeless target as \"no bonus\".\n- **Guarded mining read** decodes the three return words as `uint256` instead of `(bool, uint256, bool)`. A non-canonical bool word previously reverted every check-in, contradicting the contract's own never-reverts guarantee.\n\n**Audit findings reproduced but left unchanged.** The two low and two informational findings (invite code replay, one-captain war settlement, no cool-down on kick, tier snapshot at first touch) all reproduce, but each is the requester's documented design and a fix would change the join or war interface. Each is pinned by a `test_limitation_*` test, listed in CONTRACT.md's known limitations, and explained in ADAPTATION.md.\n\n**Tests.** The repo arrived with no `test/` and no forge-std, and `lib/` is protected. I added a self-contained cheatcode harness in `test/utils/` and two suites covering every rule CONTRACT.md lists, failing and malformed external reads, both fixes, and two fuzz tests. Live Sepolia reads of both official proxies confirmed the interface shapes match.\n\n**Docs.** ADAPTATION.md lists each change with its rule or finding. CONTRACT.md and README.md were updated to match the code and the launch. No launch.json and no `.imd-blocked.json` were written. Deployment and explorer verification are the launch deployer's step.","treeHash":"c9645c82cfcf3725d951cca5316776ed5c3e9463","usage":{"cachedInputTokens":1067961,"inputTokens":418,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","outputTokens":36063,"runtime":"claude","turns":34,"wallClockMs":467733}}],"verification":[{"checks":[{"durationMs":2316,"exitCode":0,"name":"build","output":"Compiling 13 files with Solc 0.8.24\nSolc 0.8.24 finished in 2.26s\nCompiler run successful!\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":19068,"exitCode":0,"name":"test","output":"No files changed, compilation skipped\n\nRan 4 tests for test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol:GuildWarsLaunchTest\n[PASS] test_checkInWorksWhileDependenciesHaveNoCode() (gas: 308988)\n[PASS] test_constructorDeploysOnEmptyChainWithLaunchArguments() (gas: 19861)\n[PASS] test_constructorRejectsZeroAddresses() (gas: 5056)\n[PASS] test_noOwnerFunction() (gas: 4737)\nSuite result: ok. 4 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 498.12µs (1.00ms CPU time)\n\nRan 2 tests for test/GuildWarsSafety.t.sol:GuildWarsSafetyTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_allMutatingEntryPointsRejectValue(uint96) (runs: 1000, μ: 788836, ~: 788764)\n[PASS] test_emptyCalldataAndUnexpectedSelectorsRevertEvenWithoutValue() (gas: 190176)\nSuite result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 241.89ms (243.80ms CPU time)\n\nRan 16 tests for test/GuildWarsMembership.t.sol:GuildWarsMembershipTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_capacityIncludesCaptain(uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 1101869, ~: 975889)\n[PASS] testFuzz_invalidSeatCountsAreAtomic(uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 56724, ~: 56729)\n[PASS] testFuzz_leaveCooldownIs24HoursNotNextMidnight(uint32) (runs: 1000, μ: 876738, ~: 876629)\n[PASS] testFuzz_validNamesAndAllSeatCounts(bytes32,uint8,uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 248761, ~: 247189)\n[PASS] test_claimCaptainAtBoundaryRefreshesClockAndChangesPrivileges() (gas: 656519)\n[PASS] test_closedGuildStaysClosedAndIdsAreNeverReused() (gas: 654464)\n[PASS] test_everyDisallowedByteRevertsWithoutCreatingGuild() (gas: 11196207)\n[PASS] test_kickAndRejoinCannotResetDailyLimitOrMoveEarnedPoints() (gas: 957511)\n[PASS] test_lookingFlagIsIdempotentAndIndependentOfMembershipAndScores() (gas: 656922)\n[PASS] test_nonCaptainCheckInDoesNotRefreshCaptainClock() (gas: 529087)\n[PASS] test_outsiderCannotUseAnyCaptainEntryPoint() (gas: 586431)\n[PASS] test_rejoinRefreshesInactivityDespiteOldCheckInHistory() (gas: 899209)\n[PASS] test_removeInactiveUsesLastCheckInAtExactDayBoundary() (gas: 563348)\n[PASS] test_repeatedRemovalAndLeaveCannotDebitTwice() (gas: 673077)\n[PASS] test_transferRejectsSelfZeroAndMemberOfAnotherGuild() (gas: 551438)\n[PASS] test_transferRevokesOldCaptainPermissionsAndRefreshesActivity() (gas: 546441)\nSuite result: ok. 16 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 242.72ms (718.53ms CPU time)\n\nRan 34 tests for test/GuildWars.t.sol:GuildWarsTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_readRoundNeverReverts(uint256,uint256,uint256,uint8) (runs: 256, μ: 507905, ~: 501491)\n[PASS] testFuzz_tierIsMonotonic(uint32,uint32) (runs: 256, μ: 14558, ~: 14560)\n[PASS] test_bothBonusesCapAt25() (gas: 525849)\n[PASS] test_captainMustTransferBeforeLeaving() (gas: 478023)\n[PASS] test_checkInBasePoints() (gas: 368549)\n[PASS] test_checkInOncePerDay() (gas: 558449)\n[PASS] test_checkInRequiresGuild() (gas: 35264)\n[PASS] test_claimCaptainAfterInactivity() (gas: 627936)\n[PASS] test_createGuildAndJoin() (gas: 361229)\n[PASS] test_createGuildValidation() (gas: 408993)\n[PASS] test_failingReadsMeanNoBonus() (gas: 1641917)\n[PASS] test_freshStakeIsIgnored() (gas: 898396)\n[PASS] test_joinChecks() (gas: 855372)\n[PASS] test_kick() (gas: 548782)\n[PASS] test_lastMemberLeavingClosesGuild() (gas: 313554)\n[PASS] test_leaveAppliesCooldownAndRemovesPoints() (gas: 708493)\n[PASS] test_limitation_inviteCodeIsSharedSecret() (gas: 477435)\n[PASS] test_limitation_kickHasNoCooldown() (gas: 621803)\n[PASS] test_limitation_tierSnapshotTakenAtFirstTouch() (gas: 1019139)\n[PASS] test_limitation_warSubmittedByOneCaptainSettlesBoth() (gas: 1107588)\n[PASS] test_lookingForGuildFlag() (gas: 61798)\n[PASS] test_malformedBoolWordsDoNotRevertCheckIn() (gas: 563216)\n[PASS] test_onlyCaptainManagesGuild() (gas: 450654)\n[PASS] test_rejectsEther() (gas: 64675)\n[PASS] test_removeInactive() (gas: 532195)\n[PASS] test_roundBonusDoubles() (gas: 631723)\n[PASS] test_seasonRollsOverOnMonday() (gas: 31480)\n[PASS] test_seasonScoreFrozenAfterSeasonEnds() (gas: 794911)\n[PASS] test_stakerBonus() (gas: 523046)\n[PASS] test_tierThresholds() (gas: 45501)\n[PASS] test_warAverageBeatsSize() (gas: 1078003)\n[PASS] test_warRequiresActivityThatSeason() (gas: 582789)\n[PASS] test_warTieAndDoubleSettlement() (gas: 918349)\n[PASS] test_warTierMismatch() (gas: 2823434)\nSuite result: ok. 34 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 244.13ms (241.80ms CPU time)\n\nRan 19 tests for test/GuildWarsCheckIn.t.sol:GuildWarsCheckInTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_freshStakeExactBoundaryAndOneWeiBelow(uint64) (runs: 1000, μ: 611805, ~: 611776)\n[PASS] testFuzz_roundIncreaseMagnitudeDoesNotIncreaseBonus(uint64) (runs: 1000, μ: 461931, ~: 461912)\n[PASS] testFuzz_shortResponsesDisableOnlyTheirOwnBonus(uint8,uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 557449, ~: 559178)\n[PASS] testFuzz_stakerThresholdIsInclusive(uint128) (runs: 1000, μ: 397084, ~: 393240)\n[PASS] testFuzz_streakDependsOnConsecutiveUtcDays(uint16,uint32) (runs: 1000, μ: 576828, ~: 592758)\n[PASS] testFuzz_trailingResponseBytesDoNotAlterPoints(uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 621121, ~: 602744)\n[PASS] test_checkInUsesUtcMidnightRatherThan24Hours() (gas: 475978)\n[PASS] test_checkedInEventMatchesReturnAccountingAndFlags() (gas: 549749)\n[PASS] test_eachExternalReadCanRevertRunOutOfGasOrAttemptStorageWrite() (gas: 5276570)\n[PASS] test_failedInitialRoundReadCannotFabricateRoundBonusOnRecovery() (gas: 661677)\n[PASS] test_failedRoundReadDoesNotTreatFreshStakeAsMature() (gas: 515865)\n[PASS] test_failedRoundReadPreservesHistoryAndIndependentStakingBonus() (gas: 725081)\n[PASS] test_freshPowerRoundingOneWeiBelowAndAtThreshold() (gas: 610997)\n[PASS] test_freshnessExpiresAtExactRound() (gas: 612181)\n[PASS] test_nftPowerAloneNeverQualifiesForStakerBonus() (gas: 413444)\n[PASS] test_roundZeroIsKnownAndMaxRoundDoesNotOverflow() (gas: 634023)\n[PASS] test_stakerThresholdPinnedEdges() (gas: 891113)\n[PASS] test_stakingReadsUseCheckingWalletAsArgument() (gas: 706012)\n[PASS] test_zeroAndExcessFreshPrincipalDoNotDivideOrUnderflow() (gas: 628287)\nSuite result: ok. 19 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 249.66ms (1.40s CPU time)\n\nRan 12 tests for test/GuildWarsSeasons.t.sol:GuildWarsSeasonsTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_scoreAverageHasCorrectFloor(uint8,uint8) (runs: 1000, μ: 1193102, ~: 986031)\n[PASS] testFuzz_warUsesAverageAndAwardsExactly300(uint8,uint8,uint8,uint8,bool) (runs: 1000, μ: 2515825, ~: 2337654)\n[PASS] testFuzz_weekChangesOnlyAtMondayUtc(uint16,uint32) (runs: 1000, μ: 32264, ~: 32183)\n[PASS] test_newCaptainCanSettleAndOldCaptainCannot() (gas: 911381)\n[PASS] test_nonexistentAndInactiveGuildsRejectedInEitherPosition() (gas: 716280)\n[PASS] test_previousSeasonFrozenAcrossLeaveKickJoinAndNewCheckIns() (gas: 1810501)\n[PASS] test_removingOnlyContributorMakesGuildIneligible() (gas: 835038)\n[PASS] test_seasonRolloverResetsPointsButPreservesStreak() (gas: 547786)\n[PASS] test_settledSecondArgumentCannotConsumeFreshFirstArgument() (gas: 1186303)\n[PASS] test_successfulWarDoesNotChangeScoresOrMembership() (gas: 1007991)\n[PASS] test_warEventReportsScaledScoresAndWinningGuildId() (gas: 847459)\n[PASS] test_warRejectionsLeaveBothGuildsUnsettled() (gas: 1120534)\nSuite result: ok. 12 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 249.75ms (473.49ms CPU time)\n\nRan 2 tests for test/GuildWarsInvariant.t.sol:GuildWarsInvariantTest\n[PASS]\nGuildWarsInvariantTest invariants:\n[PASS] invariant_currentAndHistoricalSeasonAccounting\n[PASS] invariant_dailyHistoryAndTierAwardConservation\n[PASS] invariant_membershipCountsAndCaptainAuthority\n GuildWarsInvariantTest invariants (runs: 256, calls: 24576, reverts: 0)\n\n╭------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------╮\n| Contract         | Selector               | Calls | Reverts | Discards |\n+========================================================================+\n| GuildWarsHandler | advanceTime            | 1834  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | changeSettings         | 1857  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | checkInActor           | 1907  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | claimCaptain           | 1923  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | createGuild            | 1913  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | joinGuild              | 1759  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | kickMember             | 1960  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | leaveGuild             | 1926  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | removeInactiveMember   | 1875  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | settleWar              | 1847  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | toggleLooking          | 1954  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | transferCaptain        | 1921  | 0       | 0        |\n|------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------|\n| GuildWarsHandler | unauthorizedManagement | 1900  | 0       | 0        |\n╰------------------+------------------------+-------+---------+----------╯\n\n[PASS] test_handlerExercisesEveryTransition() (gas: 3486676)\nSuite result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 19.00s (19.00s CPU time)\n\nRan 7 test suites in 19.00s (20.23s CPU time): 89 tests passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped (89 total tests)\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":45,"exitCode":0,"name":"source-index","output":"{\"v\":1,\"entryPoints\":[\"GuildWars.checkIn()\",\"GuildWars.claimCaptain()\",\"GuildWars.createGuild(string,uint8,bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.join(uint256,string)\",\"GuildWars.kick(address)\",\"GuildWars.leave()\",\"GuildWars.removeInactive(address)\",\"GuildWars.setInviteCode(bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.setLookingForGuild(bool)\",\"GuildWars.setRecruiting(bool)\",\"GuildWars.submitWar(uint256,uint256,uint256)\",\"GuildWars.transferCaptain(address)\"],\"files\":{\"ADAPTATION.md\":99,\"CONTRACT.md\":39,\"README.md\":49,\"SPEC.md\":125,\"foundry.toml\":13,\"guild-wars-mockup.html\":353,\"src/GuildWars.sol\":452,\"test/GuildWars.t.sol\":672,\"test/GuildWarsCheckIn.t.sol\":268,\"test/GuildWarsInvariant.t.sol\":84,\"test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol\":56,\"test/GuildWarsMembership.t.sol\":305,\"test/GuildWarsSafety.t.sol\":62,\"test/GuildWarsSeasons.t.sol\":275,\"test/TESTING.md\":66,\"test/utils/AdversarialReads.sol\":50,\"test/utils/BaseTest.sol\":59,\"test/utils/GuildWarsFixture.sol\":105,\"test/utils/GuildWarsHandler.sol\":424,\"test/utils/Mocks.sol\":56},\"excluded\":[\"lib/\",\"node_modules/\"],\"truncated\":false}","passed":true}],"detail":"all checks passed","evaluation":"checks","profile":"foundry","status":"accepted","submissionHash":"58796ecf6b94a3c7bfde7a31b5307baf4db74e2e3dfc2bcdbd682969df5d58f8","verifiedTreeHash":"ce6e9916d5f95d018f275290bcf977bc1476aa9c","verifierVersion":"0.1.0+18543036"},{"checks":[{"durationMs":827,"exitCode":0,"name":"build","output":"Compiling 5 files with Solc 0.8.24\nSolc 0.8.24 finished in 775.92ms\nCompiler run successful!\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":93,"exitCode":0,"name":"test","output":"No files changed, compilation skipped\n\nRan 4 tests for test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol:GuildWarsLaunchTest\n[PASS] test_checkInWorksWhileDependenciesHaveNoCode() (gas: 308988)\n[PASS] test_constructorDeploysOnEmptyChainWithLaunchArguments() (gas: 19861)\n[PASS] test_constructorRejectsZeroAddresses() (gas: 5056)\n[PASS] test_noOwnerFunction() (gas: 4737)\nSuite result: ok. 4 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 477.16µs (874.43µs CPU time)\n\nRan 34 tests for test/GuildWars.t.sol:GuildWarsTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_readRoundNeverReverts(uint256,uint256,uint256,uint8) (runs: 256, μ: 507655, ~: 501465)\n[PASS] testFuzz_tierIsMonotonic(uint32,uint32) (runs: 256, μ: 14557, ~: 14560)\n[PASS] test_bothBonusesCapAt25() (gas: 525849)\n[PASS] test_captainMustTransferBeforeLeaving() (gas: 478023)\n[PASS] test_checkInBasePoints() (gas: 368549)\n[PASS] test_checkInOncePerDay() (gas: 558449)\n[PASS] test_checkInRequiresGuild() (gas: 35264)\n[PASS] test_claimCaptainAfterInactivity() (gas: 627936)\n[PASS] test_createGuildAndJoin() (gas: 361229)\n[PASS] test_createGuildValidation() (gas: 408993)\n[PASS] test_failingReadsMeanNoBonus() (gas: 1641917)\n[PASS] test_freshStakeIsIgnored() (gas: 898396)\n[PASS] test_joinChecks() (gas: 855372)\n[PASS] test_kick() (gas: 548782)\n[PASS] test_lastMemberLeavingClosesGuild() (gas: 313554)\n[PASS] test_leaveAppliesCooldownAndRemovesPoints() (gas: 708493)\n[PASS] test_limitation_inviteCodeIsSharedSecret() (gas: 477435)\n[PASS] test_limitation_kickHasNoCooldown() (gas: 621803)\n[PASS] test_limitation_tierSnapshotTakenAtFirstTouch() (gas: 1019139)\n[PASS] test_limitation_warSubmittedByOneCaptainSettlesBoth() (gas: 1107588)\n[PASS] test_lookingForGuildFlag() (gas: 61798)\n[PASS] test_malformedBoolWordsDoNotRevertCheckIn() (gas: 563216)\n[PASS] test_onlyCaptainManagesGuild() (gas: 450654)\n[PASS] test_rejectsEther() (gas: 64675)\n[PASS] test_removeInactive() (gas: 532195)\n[PASS] test_roundBonusDoubles() (gas: 631723)\n[PASS] test_seasonRollsOverOnMonday() (gas: 31480)\n[PASS] test_seasonScoreFrozenAfterSeasonEnds() (gas: 794911)\n[PASS] test_stakerBonus() (gas: 523046)\n[PASS] test_tierThresholds() (gas: 45501)\n[PASS] test_warAverageBeatsSize() (gas: 1078003)\n[PASS] test_warRequiresActivityThatSeason() (gas: 582789)\n[PASS] test_warTieAndDoubleSettlement() (gas: 918349)\n[PASS] test_warTierMismatch() (gas: 2823434)\nSuite result: ok. 34 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 13.97ms (35.60ms CPU time)\n\nRan 2 test suites in 14.83ms (14.45ms CPU time): 38 tests passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped (38 total tests)\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":25,"exitCode":0,"name":"source-index","output":"{\"v\":1,\"entryPoints\":[\"GuildWars.checkIn()\",\"GuildWars.claimCaptain()\",\"GuildWars.createGuild(string,uint8,bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.join(uint256,string)\",\"GuildWars.kick(address)\",\"GuildWars.leave()\",\"GuildWars.removeInactive(address)\",\"GuildWars.setInviteCode(bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.setLookingForGuild(bool)\",\"GuildWars.setRecruiting(bool)\",\"GuildWars.submitWar(uint256,uint256,uint256)\",\"GuildWars.transferCaptain(address)\"],\"files\":{\"ADAPTATION.md\":99,\"CONTRACT.md\":39,\"README.md\":49,\"SPEC.md\":125,\"foundry.toml\":13,\"guild-wars-mockup.html\":353,\"launch.json\":14,\"src/GuildWars.sol\":452,\"test/GuildWars.t.sol\":672,\"test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol\":56,\"test/utils/BaseTest.sol\":59,\"test/utils/Mocks.sol\":56},\"excluded\":[\"lib/\",\"node_modules/\"],\"truncated\":false}","passed":true}],"detail":"all checks passed","evaluation":"checks","profile":"foundry","status":"accepted","submissionHash":"e2d653ca16410430490d9987ddfcc56261a632882a7bad26db11400f2b0aa2d7","verifiedTreeHash":"5d732e411e539f5d3529d1ef2498a6a8c0123d9b","verifierVersion":"0.1.0+18543036"},{"checks":[{"durationMs":801,"exitCode":0,"name":"build","output":"Compiling 5 files with Solc 0.8.24\nSolc 0.8.24 finished in 746.50ms\nCompiler run successful!\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":101,"exitCode":0,"name":"test","output":"No files changed, compilation skipped\n\nRan 4 tests for test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol:GuildWarsLaunchTest\n[PASS] test_checkInWorksWhileDependenciesHaveNoCode() (gas: 308988)\n[PASS] test_constructorDeploysOnEmptyChainWithLaunchArguments() (gas: 19861)\n[PASS] test_constructorRejectsZeroAddresses() (gas: 5056)\n[PASS] test_noOwnerFunction() (gas: 4737)\nSuite result: ok. 4 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 824.37µs (2.28ms CPU time)\n\nRan 34 tests for test/GuildWars.t.sol:GuildWarsTest\n[PASS] testFuzz_readRoundNeverReverts(uint256,uint256,uint256,uint8) (runs: 256, μ: 507655, ~: 501465)\n[PASS] testFuzz_tierIsMonotonic(uint32,uint32) (runs: 256, μ: 14557, ~: 14560)\n[PASS] test_bothBonusesCapAt25() (gas: 525849)\n[PASS] test_captainMustTransferBeforeLeaving() (gas: 478023)\n[PASS] test_checkInBasePoints() (gas: 368549)\n[PASS] test_checkInOncePerDay() (gas: 558449)\n[PASS] test_checkInRequiresGuild() (gas: 35264)\n[PASS] test_claimCaptainAfterInactivity() (gas: 627936)\n[PASS] test_createGuildAndJoin() (gas: 361229)\n[PASS] test_createGuildValidation() (gas: 408993)\n[PASS] test_failingReadsMeanNoBonus() (gas: 1641917)\n[PASS] test_freshStakeIsIgnored() (gas: 898396)\n[PASS] test_joinChecks() (gas: 855372)\n[PASS] test_kick() (gas: 548782)\n[PASS] test_lastMemberLeavingClosesGuild() (gas: 313554)\n[PASS] test_leaveAppliesCooldownAndRemovesPoints() (gas: 708493)\n[PASS] test_limitation_inviteCodeIsSharedSecret() (gas: 477435)\n[PASS] test_limitation_kickHasNoCooldown() (gas: 621803)\n[PASS] test_limitation_tierSnapshotTakenAtFirstTouch() (gas: 1019139)\n[PASS] test_limitation_warSubmittedByOneCaptainSettlesBoth() (gas: 1107588)\n[PASS] test_lookingForGuildFlag() (gas: 61798)\n[PASS] test_malformedBoolWordsDoNotRevertCheckIn() (gas: 563216)\n[PASS] test_onlyCaptainManagesGuild() (gas: 450654)\n[PASS] test_rejectsEther() (gas: 64675)\n[PASS] test_removeInactive() (gas: 532195)\n[PASS] test_roundBonusDoubles() (gas: 631723)\n[PASS] test_seasonRollsOverOnMonday() (gas: 31480)\n[PASS] test_seasonScoreFrozenAfterSeasonEnds() (gas: 794911)\n[PASS] test_stakerBonus() (gas: 523046)\n[PASS] test_tierThresholds() (gas: 45501)\n[PASS] test_warAverageBeatsSize() (gas: 1078003)\n[PASS] test_warRequiresActivityThatSeason() (gas: 582789)\n[PASS] test_warTieAndDoubleSettlement() (gas: 918349)\n[PASS] test_warTierMismatch() (gas: 2823434)\nSuite result: ok. 34 passed; 0 failed; 0 skipped; finished in 12.81ms (33.66ms CPU time)\n\nRan 2 test suites in 13.98ms (13.63ms CPU time): 38 tests passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped (38 total tests)\n","passed":true},{"durationMs":39,"exitCode":0,"name":"source-index","output":"{\"v\":1,\"entryPoints\":[\"GuildWars.checkIn()\",\"GuildWars.claimCaptain()\",\"GuildWars.createGuild(string,uint8,bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.join(uint256,string)\",\"GuildWars.kick(address)\",\"GuildWars.leave()\",\"GuildWars.removeInactive(address)\",\"GuildWars.setInviteCode(bytes32)\",\"GuildWars.setLookingForGuild(bool)\",\"GuildWars.setRecruiting(bool)\",\"GuildWars.submitWar(uint256,uint256,uint256)\",\"GuildWars.transferCaptain(address)\"],\"files\":{\"ADAPTATION.md\":99,\"CONTRACT.md\":39,\"README.md\":49,\"SPEC.md\":125,\"foundry.toml\":13,\"guild-wars-mockup.html\":353,\"src/GuildWars.sol\":452,\"test/GuildWars.t.sol\":672,\"test/GuildWarsLaunch.t.sol\":56,\"test/utils/BaseTest.sol\":59,\"test/utils/Mocks.sol\":56},\"excluded\":[\"lib/\",\"node_modules/\"],\"truncated\":false}","passed":true},{"durationMs":981,"exitCode":0,"name":"slither","output":"[medium/medium] divide-before-multiply at src/GuildWars.sol:260: GuildWars._computePoints(GuildWars.Member,address) (src/GuildWars.sol#260-278) performs a multiplication on the result of a division:\n[medium/high] incorrect-equality at src/GuildWars.sol:136: GuildWars.createGuild(string,uint8,bytes32) (src/GuildWars.sol#136-154) uses a dangerous strict equality:\n[medium/high] incorrect-equality at src/GuildWars.sol:280: GuildWars._record(GuildWars.Member,uint32,uint256,uint64,uint8) (src/GuildWars.sol#280-292) uses a dangerous strict equality:\n[medium/high] incorrect-equality at src/GuildWars.sol:184: GuildWars.kick(address) (src/GuildWars.sol#184-191) uses a dangerous strict equality:\n[medium/high] incorrect-equality at src/GuildWars.sol:156: GuildWars.join(uint256,string) (src/GuildWars.sol#156-166) uses a dangerous strict equality:\n[medium/high] incorrect-equality at src/GuildWars.sol:205: GuildWars.transferCaptain(address) (src/GuildWars.sol#205-213) uses a dangerous strict equality:\n[medium/medium] uninitialized-local at src/GuildWars.sol:316: GuildWars.submitWar(uint256,uint256,uint256).winner (src/GuildWars.sol#316) is a local variable never initialized\n[low/medium] return-bomb at src/GuildWars.sol:421: GuildWars._readRound() (src/GuildWars.sol#421-430) tries to limit the gas of an external call that controls implicit decoding\n[low/medium] return-bomb at src/GuildWars.sol:434: GuildWars._isStaker(address,uint256) (src/GuildWars.sol#434-451) tries to limit the gas of an external call that controls implicit decoding\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:136: GuildWars.createGuild(string,uint8,bytes32) (src/GuildWars.sol#136-154) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:156: GuildWars.join(uint256,string) (src/GuildWars.sol#156-166) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:205: GuildWars.transferCaptain(address) (src/GuildWars.sol#205-213) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:184: GuildWars.kick(address) (src/GuildWars.sol#184-191) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:234: GuildWars.setInviteCode(bytes32) (src/GuildWars.sol#234-239) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:280: GuildWars._record(GuildWars.Member,uint32,uint256,uint64,uint8) (src/GuildWars.sol#280-292) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:300: GuildWars.submitWar(uint256,uint256,uint256) (src/GuildWars.sol#300-328) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:247: GuildWars.checkIn() (src/GuildWars.sol#247-257) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:194: GuildWars.removeInactive(address) (src/GuildWars.sol#194-203) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:227: GuildWars.setRecruiting(bool) (src/GuildWars.sol#227-232) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:216: GuildWars.claimCaptain() (src/GuildWars.sol#216-225) uses timestamp for comparisons\n[low/medium] timestamp at src/GuildWars.sol:168: GuildWars.leave() (src/GuildWars.sol#168-182) uses timestamp for comparisons","passed":true},{"durationMs":327,"exitCode":0,"name":"aderyn","output":"[high] unsafe-casting at src/GuildWars.sol:286: Unsafe Casting of integers\n[low] large-numeric-literal at src/GuildWars.sol:35: Large Numeric Literal\n[low] literal-instead-of-constant at src/GuildWars.sol:125: Literal Instead of Constant (7 places)\n[low] push-zero-opcode at src/GuildWars.sol:2: PUSH0 Opcode\n[low] require-revert-in-loop at src/GuildWars.sol:412: Loop Contains `require`/`revert`\n[low] unspecific-solidity-pragma at src/GuildWars.sol:2: Unspecific Solidity Pragma\n[low] unused-state-variable at src/GuildWars.sol:35: Unused State Variable","passed":true}],"detail":"all checks passed","evaluation":"checks","profile":"foundry","status":"accepted","submissionHash":"e41b7d65062468b8c100b1db3dcdc11a854ca52273a9e0749f2ae665413e0a42","verifiedTreeHash":"c9645c82cfcf3725d951cca5316776ed5c3e9463","verifierVersion":"0.1.0+18543036"}]}