Create an AI system that assists with incident response and forensics for smart contract hacks:
- Attack Detection: Real-time detection of ongoing attacks
- Impact Analysis: Rapid assessment of attack impact
- Forensic Analysis: Analyze on-chain data for attack reconstruction
- Response Recommendations: Suggest immediate response actions
- Post-Mortem Generation: Generate comprehensive post-incident reports
- Recovery Planning: Plan recovery strategies and fund recovery
- Communication Automation: Automate stakeholder communication
- Lessons Learned: Extract lessons learned for prevention
Requirements:
- Build real-time monitoring and alerting
- Implement impact analysis algorithms
- Create forensic analysis tools for on-chain data
- Build response recommendation engine
- Implement post-mortem report generation
- Create recovery planning tools
- Build communication automation
- Implement lessons learned extraction
- Create integration with blockchain explorers
- Build dashboard for incident management
Acceptance Criteria:
- Detect ongoing attacks within 1 minute
- Impact analysis accuracy >90%
- Forensic analysis reconstructs 95%+ of attack steps
- Response recommendations are actionable and effective
- Post-mortem reports are comprehensive and professional
- Recovery planning considers all relevant factors
- Integration with existing security tools
- Incident response time reduced by 50%
Difficulty: Critical - Requires incident response expertise, real-time systems
Maintainer Scope Upgrade
This issue is being expanded into a substantial, production-quality ChainProof enhancement. The implementation should be designed as maintainable platform work, not as a narrow proof of concept. A successful pull request must provide a cohesive user-facing capability, typed internal APIs, robust tests, documentation, and CI-safe behavior.
Expanded Objective
Build incident-response workflows for triaging severe findings and suspected exploit paths. The feature should fit the existing monorepo architecture, reuse current scanner/report/CLI patterns where appropriate, and avoid introducing ad hoc subsystems that are difficult to test or maintain.
Required Implementation Depth
This issue is intentionally scoped to require more than 700 lines of meaningful implementation work. The line count expectation applies to purposeful source, tests, fixtures, and documentation that are necessary to deliver the feature. It must not be satisfied through generated output, lockfile churn, formatting-only changes, duplicated boilerplate, or artificial padding.
Expected work includes:
- Runbooks, severity escalation, artifact capture, remediation tracking, and optional notification hooks.
- Structured incident reports generated from scan results and repository context.
- Tests for critical findings, empty scans, provider failures, and reproducible report output.
- Public or internal types/interfaces where they clarify behavior and reduce future integration risk.
- Failure-mode handling for invalid input, missing configuration, unavailable optional dependencies, and degraded execution paths.
- Documentation updates that explain how maintainers and users should operate the new capability in local and CI environments.
Professional Quality Bar
The implementation must be production-ready and reviewable in isolation. Contributors should include clear separation between parsing, analysis, reporting, CLI/action integration, and persistence or provider code where those concerns apply. The code should follow existing ChainProof conventions, keep behavior deterministic in tests, and avoid coupling core analysis to network-only services unless explicitly optional and mocked.
Acceptance Criteria
- The delivered PR contains more than 700 meaningful lines of implementation across source, tests, fixtures, and docs, excluding generated files and lockfile-only changes.
- The feature is integrated into the relevant package entrypoints, CLI commands, report formats, GitHub Action behavior, or documentation as appropriate for this issue.
- Unit tests cover normal operation, edge cases, invalid inputs, and at least one realistic fixture or end-to-end workflow.
- Any optional external service, model provider, database, or platform integration has deterministic mocks or fallbacks so CI does not depend on secrets or network availability.
- User-facing output is documented and stable enough for downstream automation.
- Backward compatibility is preserved unless the PR explicitly documents a migration path and the maintainer approves it.
Mandatory CI and Merge Requirements
A PR resolving this issue must not be merged until all repository CI checks pass. At minimum, reviewers should verify the following from a clean checkout:
npm cinpm run lintnpm run build --workspaces --if-presentnpm run test:ci --workspace=packages/corenpm test --workspaces --if-presentnpm run build --workspace=packages/core && npm run docs --workspace=packages/core- Any package-specific tests, examples, validators, or integration checks introduced by the PR
If the PR adds a GitHub Action, report format, dashboard, persistence layer, or external integration, it must also include CI coverage or a documented local verification command for that path. Known warnings are acceptable only when they are documented and do not hide failures.
Review Expectations
Reviewers should reject PRs that only stub APIs, add superficial wrappers, omit tests for critical behavior, rely on live secrets in CI, or meet the line-count target through non-functional bulk changes. The preferred solution is a focused but complete vertical slice that leaves ChainProof more reliable, easier to operate, and easier to extend.
Create an AI system that assists with incident response and forensics for smart contract hacks:
Requirements:
Acceptance Criteria:
Difficulty: Critical - Requires incident response expertise, real-time systems
Maintainer Scope Upgrade
This issue is being expanded into a substantial, production-quality ChainProof enhancement. The implementation should be designed as maintainable platform work, not as a narrow proof of concept. A successful pull request must provide a cohesive user-facing capability, typed internal APIs, robust tests, documentation, and CI-safe behavior.
Expanded Objective
Build incident-response workflows for triaging severe findings and suspected exploit paths. The feature should fit the existing monorepo architecture, reuse current scanner/report/CLI patterns where appropriate, and avoid introducing ad hoc subsystems that are difficult to test or maintain.
Required Implementation Depth
This issue is intentionally scoped to require more than 700 lines of meaningful implementation work. The line count expectation applies to purposeful source, tests, fixtures, and documentation that are necessary to deliver the feature. It must not be satisfied through generated output, lockfile churn, formatting-only changes, duplicated boilerplate, or artificial padding.
Expected work includes:
Professional Quality Bar
The implementation must be production-ready and reviewable in isolation. Contributors should include clear separation between parsing, analysis, reporting, CLI/action integration, and persistence or provider code where those concerns apply. The code should follow existing ChainProof conventions, keep behavior deterministic in tests, and avoid coupling core analysis to network-only services unless explicitly optional and mocked.
Acceptance Criteria
Mandatory CI and Merge Requirements
A PR resolving this issue must not be merged until all repository CI checks pass. At minimum, reviewers should verify the following from a clean checkout:
npm cinpm run lintnpm run build --workspaces --if-presentnpm run test:ci --workspace=packages/corenpm test --workspaces --if-presentnpm run build --workspace=packages/core && npm run docs --workspace=packages/coreIf the PR adds a GitHub Action, report format, dashboard, persistence layer, or external integration, it must also include CI coverage or a documented local verification command for that path. Known warnings are acceptable only when they are documented and do not hide failures.
Review Expectations
Reviewers should reject PRs that only stub APIs, add superficial wrappers, omit tests for critical behavior, rely on live secrets in CI, or meet the line-count target through non-functional bulk changes. The preferred solution is a focused but complete vertical slice that leaves ChainProof more reliable, easier to operate, and easier to extend.