Search: "implementation"

Token integration and implementation analyzer based on Trail of Bits' token integration checklist. Analyzes token implementations for ERC20/ERC721 conformity, checks for 20+ weird token patterns, assesses contract composition and owner privileges, performs on-chain scarcity analysis, and evaluates how protocols handle non-standard tokens. Use when integrating or accepting arbitrary ERC20/ERC721 tokens, auditing a token implementation for standards conformity, or assessing risk from weird tokens such as fee-on-transfer, rebasing, missing return values, or blocklists.

Validates cryptographic implementations against Project Wycheproof's test vectors, which encode known attacks and edge cases across AES, RSA, ECDSA, ECDH, and more. Covers loading test vectors, mapping result flags onto pass and fail expectations, and reading a failure. Use when testing a crypto implementation against known attacks, checking a library against standard test vectors, or investigating why two implementations disagree on the same input.

Expands one confirmed or suspected vulnerability into a Trailmark graph neighborhood of variant candidates by finding sibling functions, shared callers and callees, common sensitive sinks, common entrypoint paths, interface implementations, override relationships, type/reference neighbors, and structurally similar nodes. Use after one issue is found to seed variant-analysis, semgrep-rule-creator, static-analysis, or manual review with graph-derived candidate locations.

Smart contract development advisor based on Trail of Bits' best practices. Analyzes codebase to generate documentation/specifications, review architecture, check upgradeability patterns, assess implementation quality, identify pitfalls, review dependencies, and evaluate testing. Use when asking whether a smart contract project follows development best practices, reviewing on-chain/off-chain split, upgradeability, or delegatecall proxy patterns against guidelines, or seeking recommendations on contract design, inheritance, events, documentation, dependencies, or test strategy.

Measures timing side channels in cryptographic implementations by running them, using dudect for statistical analysis and Timecop over Valgrind for dynamic tracing. Covers the formal, symbolic, dynamic, and statistical tool categories and how to read a result. Use when testing whether a running implementation is constant-time, measuring timing variance on a compiled binary, or investigating a suspected timing attack. Not for statically inspecting compiler output — the constant-time-analysis plugin covers that.

Check code against the documentation that specifies it - which requirements hold, which the code contradicts, which are absent, and what the code does that no document mentions. Use when comparing an implementation against a whitepaper, protocol spec, or design document.

Build animations in React Native and Expo, making the decisions in the order that determines whether they feel right — should it animate, which thread it runs on, which properties, spring or timing, how the gesture hands off, how it degrades. Writes the implementation with Reanimated, Gesture Handler, Expo Router and expo-haptics. Use when animating anything in an Expo app, adding gestures, sheets, screen transitions, press feedback or haptics, or fixing motion that stutters on device. For web animation use `animate`.

Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available

Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work

Mutation-driven test vector generation. Finds implementations of a cryptographic algorithm or protocol, runs mutation testing to identify escaped mutants, then generates new test vectors that deliberately exercise the uncovered code paths. Compares before/after mutation kill rates to prove vector effectiveness. Use when generating cryptographic test vectors, measuring Wycheproof coverage gaps, finding escaped mutants via mutation testing, creating cross-implementation test suites, or improving test vector coverage for crypto primitives.