AI-Powered Multi-Contract Analysis System

[Nanle-code]

Create an AI system that analyzes complex systems with multiple interacting contracts:

1. System-Level Analysis: Analyze security at the system level, not just contract level
2. Interaction Modeling: Model interactions between multiple contracts
3. Composability Risks: Identify risks from DeFi composability
4. Cross-Contract Vulnerabilities: Detect vulnerabilities that span multiple contracts
5. Dependency Analysis: Analyze dependency chains and their risks
6. System State Modeling: Model state across multiple contracts
7. Upgrade Impact: Analyze impact of upgrading individual contracts
8. Integration Testing: Generate integration tests for multi-contract systems

Requirements:

• Build system-level analysis algorithms
• Implement interaction modeling
• Create composability risk analysis
• Build cross-contract vulnerability detection
• Implement dependency analysis
• Create system state modeling
• Build upgrade impact analysis
• Implement integration test generation
• Create visualization of multi-contract systems
• Build integration with protocol graphs

Acceptance Criteria:

• Detect 70%+ of cross-contract vulnerabilities
• System-level analysis identifies risks missed by single-contract analysis
• Composability risk assessment accuracy >85%
• Integration tests achieve 90%+ coverage of interactions
• Visualization is clear and helpful
• Integration with existing ChainProof workflow
• Performance acceptable for large systems (100+ contracts)

Difficulty: Critical - Requires distributed systems expertise, complex system analysis

---

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 multi-contract analysis that reasons about system behavior across imports, inheritance, and external calls. 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:

• Whole-project graph construction, cross-contract data/control-flow summaries, and scalable traversal APIs.
• Integration points for rules that need protocol-wide context rather than per-file ASTs.
• Performance tests and fixtures for inherited, circular, and deep dependency graphs.
• 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 ci
• npm run lint
• npm run build --workspaces --if-present
• npm run test:ci --workspace=packages/core
• npm test --workspaces --if-present
• npm 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.