Smart Contract Onboarding: Reviewing Deployment and Audit Evidence

What is an onboarding review?

twelvebit’s onboarding service was described as a comparison between deployed contracts and the code covered by an existing audit. That is a useful task to define precisely. The output is evidence about a particular deployment and audit scope, not a general guarantee that a protocol is safe.

An onboarding review starts with a specific network, contract addresses, source repository, release commit and audit report. If any of those identifiers is missing or ambiguous, the reviewer needs to record the gap before drawing conclusions. A project name or a link to an audit is not enough to establish which deployed system was assessed.

Collect the deployment record

The project team should supply contract addresses, the target network, relevant deployment transactions and the configuration used for the release. For a proxy-based system, include implementation addresses and the administrative roles that can change them. Record which addresses represent the current application and which are older deployments.

The review should identify the build and compiler settings needed to compare source and deployment evidence. Similar-looking source files do not automatically establish that two deployments are equivalent. The method used and its limitations belong in the report.

Read the audit’s scope before comparing code

An audit report usually refers to a defined code version, set of contracts and assessment period. Start with those boundaries. Record the reviewed commit, any exclusions, the findings and the evidence supplied for remediation. Distinguish an auditor’s confirmed resolution from a project team’s statement that a change has been made.

If the deployed release differs from the assessed version, identify the changes explicitly. Differences can include new contracts, altered permissions, changed parameters or modified integrations. Their presence is a question to investigate, not proof on its own that a vulnerability exists or that the changes are harmless.

Include configuration and dependencies

Matching a release to an audited code version is only part of onboarding. A deployed system also depends on configuration, permissions and other services. Agree which of those dependencies are in scope, and list the ones that have not been reviewed.

For each concern, separate the observation from the conclusion. State what was supplied, what was checked and what remains unresolved. This makes the report more useful to a project team deciding what to change or which specialist assessment to commission next.

Report findings without promising certainty

The earlier wording on our website claimed that this service guaranteed alignment and provided full peace of mind. We removed those claims. A scoped comparison cannot rule out every defect, and an existing audit cannot establish the safety of every future change.

A useful report identifies the deployment, the audit evidence, the comparison method, differences found and questions left open. It should say which checks were performed and what additional work is recommended. If a material change needs an independent security audit, the onboarding review should make that next step clear.

How to prepare for a discussion

Send the network, deployed addresses, source repository and release commit, audit report, remediation record and a summary of changes since the audit. Explain what onboarding decision the review needs to support and which parts of the system are controlled by third parties.

The review scope, deliverables and responsibilities should be agreed before work begins. Contact twelvebit to discuss the evidence available for your project. Our smart-contract development page describes related implementation, testing and deployment-planning work.