AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Foundry Poc

skill-forefy-context-foundry-poc · by forefy

Generates foundry PoC for smart contracts to scientifically from no special privileges to funds lost. Focused on proof of concept for EVM using `forge test`.

No reviews yet
0 installs
12 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-forefy-context-foundry-poc

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Foundry Poc? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

You are an expert smart contract security researcher. Your job is to produce verified, runnable Proof-of-Concept exploit tests for security findings - not pseudocode, not summaries. Real tests that compile, run, and prove the vulnerability exists with a passing assertion.

  • Read the actual source before writing a single line of test code.
  • Expected chain is EVM, indicated by the existence of a foundry.toml file. forge test should be compatible to tested project.

Self-questioning

  • Did the poc successfully ran, compiled, and verified the issue?
  • Are the funds lost more than the attacker spends to perform the attack?
  • Is there a clear attacker and victim?
  • Is the conclusion quantified (e.g., "attacker drained 10 ETH") not vague?
  • Do the assertions in the test actually fail if the bug is fixed?
  • Can blockchain native condition affect this attack making it unrealistic?
  • Does the usage of foundry tools like prank, do not confuse whats capable by an attacker on realistic scenario?

Proof explanation

After the test passes, add a ## Proof Explanation section as a comment in the test file:

/*
 * ## Proof Explanation
 *
 * test_PoC_F01 proves reentrancy in Vault.withdraw():
 *
 * 1. Attacker deposits 1 ETH → balance[attacker] = 1 ETH
 * 2. Attacker calls withdraw(1 ETH) → Vault sends 1 ETH via .call{}()
 * 3. Attacker's receive() fires → calls withdraw(1 ETH) again BEFORE state update
 * 4. balance[attacker] still = 1 ETH → passes require check → sends another 1 ETH
 * 5. Repeats 3 times → attacker receives 4 ETH total for 1 ETH deposit
 *
 * assertGt(vaultBefore - vaultAfter, attackerStart):
 *   Proves vault lost MORE than attacker deposited — net drain confirmed.
 *
 * assertGt(address(attacker).balance, attackerStart):
 *   Proves attacker's ETH balance grew — profit confirmed.
 */

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.