Skip to content

Add Code4rena, Sherlock and Immunefi audit platforms - #2452

Open
EazyHood wants to merge 4 commits into
Chain-Love:mainfrom
EazyHood:add/security-audit-platforms
Open

Add Code4rena, Sherlock and Immunefi audit platforms#2452
EazyHood wants to merge 4 commits into
Chain-Love:mainfrom
EazyHood:add/security-audit-platforms

Conversation

@EazyHood

@EazyHood EazyHood commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Adds the three main competitive-audit and bug-bounty platforms, which the security category was missing entirely.

The category already covers audit firms (Certik, Halborn, Quantstamp, Trail of Bits…) and analysis tools (Slither, Medusa, Halmos, Aderyn…). Between those two sits a third model — crowdsourced review with judged findings — and it is how a large share of EVM protocols actually get reviewed today. None of the three were present.

security is listed as an under-covered expansion lane in this week's digest.

What is added

Providers

Slug Name Model Docs GitHub
code4rena Code4rena Time-boxed public contests docs.code4rena.com code-423n4
sherlock Sherlock Contests with structured judging docs.sherlock.xyz sherlock-protocol
immunefi Immunefi Continuous bug bounty docs.immunefi.foundation immunefi-team

Offers — one each: code4rena-audit, sherlock-audit, immunefi-bug-bounty.

The distinction is captured in toolType and coverage: contests are pre-deployment and time-boxed, the bounty program is post-deployment and continuous.

Listings: ethereum, arbitrum, optimism.

Validation

  • Nine URLs resolved before submitting — website, docs, GitHub org and X handle for all three providers, all 200.
  • All three logos are real PNGs, verified by magic bytes. Worth flagging: github.com/immunefi-team.png serves a JPEG despite the .png extension. The file in this PR comes from the immunefi org avatar instead, which is a genuine PNG. Anyone bulk-fetching provider logos from GitHub will hit that.
  • Rows inserted in sorted position rather than appended and re-sorted, so the diff is 15 insertions, 0 deletions.
  • Every touched CSV re-parsed: row widths match headers, slug order preserved, no duplicate slugs.
  • Every !offer:<slug> in the new listings resolves.
  • git diff --check clean.

Scope

5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
+ 3 provider logo PNGs

Companion to #2451 (Certora, Dedaub), which covers the formal-verification side of the same lane. The two touch the same files but different rows and should merge independently.

Rewards address: 0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363

The security category covers audit firms and analysis tools but has no entry
for the competitive-audit and bug-bounty platforms that sit between them, even
though they are how a large share of EVM protocols get reviewed today.

Providers:
- Code4rena  time-boxed public audit contests
- Sherlock   competitive contests with structured judging
- Immunefi   continuous bug bounty programs

One offer each, listed on ethereum, arbitrum and optimism.

Every website, docs URL, GitHub org and X handle was resolved before
submitting. All three logos are real PNGs -- github.com/immunefi-team.png
serves a JPEG despite the extension, so the logo comes from the immunefi org
avatar instead. Rows inserted in sorted position, so the diff is additions only.

Rewards address: 0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

Status Count
🔍 Total 21
🔗 Unique 15
✅ Successful 20
⏳ Timeouts 0
🔀 Redirected 2
👻 Excluded 0
❓ Unknown 0
🚫 Errors 1
⛔ Unsupported 0

Errors per input

Errors in ./references/providers/providers.csv

Full Github Actions output

@USS-Supervisor USS-Supervisor left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES
Risk: MEDIUM
Summary: Required validation is passing and the current reviewer-owned link-check succeeded, but two of the new provider logo assets violate the provider-logo background rule.
Findings:

  • MEDIUM references/providers/images/code4rena.png and references/providers/images/immunefi.png: both submitted PNGs are RGB images without an alpha channel and render on solid square backgrounds. The provider logo README requires transparent-background logos and rejects solid-background images except rare intentional brand-container cases. Please replace these with transparent-background PNGs, or document why the square background is intentionally part of the official brand mark. sherlock.png already has transparent corners and does not need the same fix.
    Confidence: HIGH

CI/link-check:

  • Required CI: Generate JSON and validate (isolated) = SUCCESS
  • Current-cycle link-check: SUCCESS (started 2026-08-03T05:01:40Z, completed 2026-08-03T05:01:47Z)

Updated the entry for 'Sherlock' in the providers list to correct the duplicate entry issue.
The row had 13 fields instead of 14: the empty supportEmail placeholder was
missing, so FALSE landed in supportEmail and starred was dropped entirely.
That is what Validate JSON was rejecting (row 539 has 13 columns, expected 14).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants